Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Bye

It's become clear to me that I can't continue to contribute to the refdesk without getting into conflict with StuRat, and that this conflict is a waste of time. So, I'm bowing out and finding something more useful to do. Nice working with you all. Cheers, Sam Clark 13:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. It's a shame you were driven away by meaningless conflict which appears to have been perpetuated only to defend a populist interpretation of information. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Is this something to do with the 'holocaust' discussion? I wasn't really following it. The original question was basically wrong - hypothetical or not.
These comments are not directed at anyone in particular:
People are not capable of making moral judgements about any other person whatsoever - who ever you are - and what ever the situation. They can only morally judge themselves.
It is totally immoral to use other peoples suffering as a basis for your 'moralising'.
I'm sorry that both of you got caught in this trap.
Why not forget about it and get on with whatever you were doing before.
And don't leave because of this - you are a good egg (as it Sturat)87.102.5.69 14:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sam: It is, of course, your choice to stay or leave. I would ask for you to stay, however, so long as you can, in the future, manage to treat everyone with respect, not only those with academic credentials in philosophy. StuRat 14:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Goodbye Sam. Nice knowing you.

Seriously, is it not possible to let everybody speak their opinion? Why do you find that so hard to do? I don't think you can avoid getting into disagreements with anybody if you insist that you're the expert and nobody is allowed to differ from your opinion. --Bowlhover 17:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not what he said. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am truly sorry to learn of your decision, Sam, and urge you, for the sake of sanity, to change your mind. Your's is a clear and rational voice, and your absence diminishes us all. In those times when I feel undervalued I always seek consolation in the words of the wonderful Jonathan Swift. Here are a few lines of his for you to reflect on;

He gave the little wealth he had

To build a house for fools and mad;

And show'd, by one satiric touch,

No nation wanted it so much.

Ever your friend. Clio the Muse 19:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sam Clark, I hope that after a few days away you find you're able to come back and help us out some more. StuRat, I hope you'll learn from this that there are ways to disagree without driving off other contributors. Friday (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

My goal is to have everyone treat everyone else with respect. If they can't do that, then it is better if they leave. StuRat 15:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. Not another "everybody's out to get me because they dare question my posts" whiner. Not only is that a cop-out, but it's an insult to the intelligence of all the rest of us. If you're indeed right, and StuRat is indeed an ignorant moron, don't you think the rest of us would see through it all and stick up for you? Or are we all too blinded by our own stupidity to see the truth? Trust me, I've been through it, it may require a thick skin, but if you're indeed in the right here, please just stick around, and believe me, impossible as it may seem, the rest of us are bright enough to eventually figure it all out. Yours, Loomis 15:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive#Popular culture and law reference desks, there's now a Wikipedia:Reference desk/Popular culture, but it needs linking from here. NeonMerlin 23:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Do you have an icon for it, to fit with the pattern of the others? -- SCZenz 23:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I've now linked it. I've decided on Image:P music.png until we decide on (or create) something else. All that remains is to set up the archive system. NeonMerlin 23:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Grrrrrr. I suggested a pop culture desk about six months ago, and ended up on the bottom of a big dogpile of editors who thought the idea sucked hairy @zz. I guess I suggested it in the wrong place. :-(( Anchoress 00:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes you did, how prophetic! --hydnjo talk 03:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the new desk (I've proposed it myself, as well), but do feel it would have been more appropriate to discuss it here first. StuRat 10:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Good luck to the new desk!87.102.22.58 11:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Propose new desks here, not the village pump. And we need another desk to make it look decent, the table is uneven --frothT C 22:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How about an RD Staff Tea Room Desk? where everyone can relax and have a bit of fun? 8-)--Light current 00:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Uh oh, that's asking for trouble! --frothT C 01:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
OK well how about the Beavis and Butthead page specially for me ans Stu?--Light current 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Downgraded to semi-protected

I had no idea that Wikipedia:Reference desk was protected. The reason seems to have been to keep questions from being placed there by inexperienced users. I think semi-protection will be sufficient for this, so I have reduced the level of protection. NeonMerlin, unless you're very new, you can now add the link yourself! -- SCZenz 23:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

...and I reversed that. Template:RD header is free to fiddle with. --HappyCamper 23:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I missed the fact that the header is separate... my bad. But still, the reason you gave for the protection only justifies semi-protection, not full protection, as far as I can tell. Unless I'm missing something? -- SCZenz 23:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
There's very little to modify on WP:RD beyond the transclusion of the header and a bunch of cats; I guess that anyone who ought to fiddle with the main RD page will be able to find the template and deal with it (semi-protected though it may be). On the other hand, having a fully-protected WP-RD helps avoid the confusion and inconvenience that might otherwise result from a relative newbie (remember, editors can edit semi-protected pages just four days after registration) inadvertently placing a comment on the main page. I guess this is a situation where I can't see the harm in full protection. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
My only quibble would be that since protection (of any sort) is not "the wiki way", the burden of proof should be on someone who wants to increase the protection level of a page, not decrease it. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but I don't think it's worth arguing over. -- SCZenz 18:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Protection is clearly justified --frothT C 22:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion (originally posted there)

Pop-Culture Page?

Where did this page come from? Zoinks, if only I had a pop-culture question, I'd be the first to ask something here. --Cody.Pope 22:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This is wot done it Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive#Popular_culture_and_law_reference_desks doesn't take much on a wiki. meltBanana 01:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I just want to say good job, I was getting really tired of all those questions, like what are the lyrics, which episode is that etc etc. in the Humanities Section. --Foundby 11:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Same here.  :-) Marco polo 21:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


I would like...

...to register my displeasure with the creation of this new desk. The old group of reference desks was well divided into distinct groups of knowledge. Although the Computer desk somewhat split into both math and science, it was needed and really was its own concrete group. On the other hand, Popular Culture can, for the most part, be put in Miscelaneous or Humanities with little or no issue. Most people well-versed in the humanities are fairly well versed in pop culture (look at crosswords or Jeopardy.) People who answer many history questions on the Humanities desk often answer many literature questions for a similar reason; they tend to be fairly knowledgable in a variety of humano/art-centric fields. Because it doubtful that a chiefly Humanities questionee will spend equal time looking at the Pop Culture section, by dividing this new section up from the old, you (I am speaking generally to whoever it was who has done this) are doubtless detracting from the amount of attention pop-culture questions may get.

Moreover, the definition of pop-culture may prove problematic. What if somebody wants to ask about Bob Marley or Lou Reed? The people who could answer such a question intelligently would be split fairly evenly, I suppose, between Humanities and Pop Culture guys. Or what if someone wants to talk about a fairly indie current movie, which is in no way "popular?" In which section would this fall? Whichever section it landed in, wouldn't the responses suffer from a lack of attention from the other desk? As well, isn't a Pop Culture desk necessarily to the exclusion of a culture desk from other periods? Why is it that junky music and movies that are hip today get their own page while good stuff from mid century gets shafted? The easy solution to this quandry would be to create a Culture desk. But that's largely what Humanities is for. So why the change? Sashafklein 06:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And why a sixteenth note? Sashafklein 06:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say pop culture includes all the music you listed, I'd even go back to Big Band era music. Classical music, that would be Humanities, I'd say (although there is the Boston Pops. StuRat 08:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly new to the Reference Desk scene, but I support the split-off. Perhaps retitling this as Entertainment would avoid possible offense (at the definition of "what is Culture?") or confusion while serve the purpose of diverting the queries from the Humanities Reference desk -- where, I must admit, I presently do a lot of scrolling past these in order to focus on asking and answering queries in history, geography, literature, and what are generally known as Fine Arts. I'm certainly willing to participate in both (as well as the Language Reference desk), which are my areas of expertise.
Like the definition of "weed" being subjective, I wonder whether those asking entertainment-themed queries find all that Humanities stuff just so much clutter...? -- yours, Deborahjay 08:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Per this discussion, I've renamed the desk "Entertainment," but I will not support scrapping it until it's had a couple months to prove or disprove itself. NeonMerlin 11:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm for the new desk. I think entertainment is a very popular posting on the reference desk and whilst misc/humanities will cover these it makes sense for them to have their own section. Perhaps humanities and language could be grouped-together if there is desire for less pages but personally I don't see what differences it makes if there are 5 reference desks or 6 (or however many there are). Happy to help on the desks wherever possible myself (though rarely do anything more than adding littles bits and bobs to answers!) ny156uk 17:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Two not-very-valuable thoughts:
  1. If you want a logical organization of knowledge, let's just make 10 desks for each hundred numbers in the Dewey Decimal System. As a bonus, that'll merge Miscellaneous into Computers.
  2. It would sully the very notion of the humanities to group "pop culture" in there. --zenohockey 03:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

an idea

Completely separate from all the discussion of what specifically is or isn't appropriate, completely separate from all the debate over our nascent new Reference Desk guidelines, what if we ran an experiment for a few weeks or a month where anyone who wanted to could offer their opinion on whether each day's Reference Desk content was:

  1. 100% on-topic
  2. mostly on-topic, with an acceptable level of humor, banter, and off-topic asides
  3. somewhat on-topic, with a borderline level of off-topic content
  4. partly on-topic, with too much off-topic content
  5. barely on-topic, with way too much off-topic content

At the same time, anyone who wanted to (but especially the "reference desk regulars", whoever they are) could monitor this feedback and try to adjust their output of humor, banter, and off-topic asides as appropriate.

I'm afraid it would be too much work to enter and (somehow) tally the "votes", and there would probably also be accusations of vote-stacking or other bias, but it's an interesting thought experiment. (The goal, of course, would be to prove whether the "regulars" could be sensitive to feedback and thereby adjust their banter level, of their own volition, to suit the critics' concerns, without prolix guidelines or contentious deletions or other draconian measures.)

—Steve Summit (talk) 04:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The desk is mostly on-topic, unquestionably. The issue is not how often off-topic remarks are made, but rather how often they interfere with the function of the desk—either by getting in the way of real answers or by potentially offending our broader audience. -- SCZenz 05:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
If they don't interfere, I'd say that's #2, "an acceptable level".
Some of the critics have made it sound like they think the Reference Desks are cesspools of off-topic content, and while I certainly don't think that's the case, either, it's to accommodate that POV that I included levels 4 and 5 in the hypothetical scale... —Steve Summit (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not that there's constant off-topic chatter.... It's that even one sexist joke, or even one comment that actively impedes the effort to answer a question, in a day is too many. -- SCZenz 05:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think that's an unrealistic goal. Wikipedia is a work-in-progress -- one of the world's biggest -- and no part of it will ever be perfect. (You're right, though, one a day would be too many. But I wonder how big a problem one a week would be, or one a month?) —Steve Summit (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll echo what SCZenz has said. The vast majority of questions on the Ref Desk are reasonable, good-faith requests. By far the bulk of responses are polite, helpful, and useful—and a good chunk of those include links to appropriate sources. I don't really have a serious objection to friendly humour, in moderation, as long as people don't get carried away. (Remember, a lot of extra chatter makes an already-long page even longer, and makes the Ref Desk less accessible to dial-up users.) If the tangential stuff and jokes are kept to a dull roar, the Desk will probably function reasonably well.
Well why doesnt some one flipping well archive it more often then if its too long for newbies tiny browsers for Gods sake. Im sick of hearing this pathetic argument--Light current 22:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem arises with the very small fraction – and it is a small fraction – of posts which are actively harmful. A very small number of really inappropriate remarks can have a disproportionate effect on people's perception of the Ref Desk. Nobody talks about the hundred useful answers on the page, because that's the way it's supposed to work. We have to deal with the few cases that are left over. Frankly, they mostly boil down to an individual who has let their desire to proudly show off a 'clever' or 'witty' remark cloud their judgement about how other people might be hurt, confused, or offended. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that problem posts are a very small proportion of total posts. I disagree, however, that they have a disproportionate negative effect. If somebody asks a question and gets a good answer, do you really think they will swear off Wikipedia forever because they saw an off-color joke on another question ? I would agree that the complaints are disproportionate, and only from a few people, but that shouldn't be taken to mean that the vast majority of Ref Desk readers are offended, but just that we have a few rather vocal people who really love to complain. Just looking at my own posts, I've gotten many thanks from the OPs on my answers, and very few complaints from OPs. On the other hand, I get a great deal of complaints, and very little thanks, from a few people who hang out here. I must conclude from this that those people do not accurately represent the OPs. StuRat 10:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
You might instead conclude that people who are offended just don't come back; your data don't address a potential source of sampling bias. In any case, I don't see the value in pushing to include content on the Ref Desk that offends even a few people but doesn't help any people with their questions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not reasonable to assume that droves of people are so horrified at the Ref Desk posts that they are fleeing Wikipedia, when there is absolutely no evidence of this. We also have no evidence that the things being removed actually offend people, it's almost always "I think that somebody could possibly be offended", which amounts to a wild guess. The only ones who typically claim to be offended are the occasional anon I/Ps, with little edit history and detailed knowledge of how to use Wikipedia, which sure sounds like sockpuppets to me. And, yet again, the reason not to remove posts is that you are almost certain to offend the author. StuRat 15:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
StuRat, it comes down to something rather simple. Our interest in keeping the desk friendly for the general public outweighs our desire to not offend the author. Yes, that's right- the good of the desk is more important than your right to make whatever jokes you want. If you want to make whatever jokes you like, you will have far more latitude on your own talk page than on the public reference desk. It's just a matter of priorities. This doesn't mean that offending an author by removing their comment is harmless, it just means we think it does less harm than offending a random passerby. Really, we should not try to "own" the desk to such a point that we're horrified that one of our comments might be removed. In the entire rest of the Wikipedian world, if someone removes a comment, this is usually interpreted by the author as "oops, I guess I was out of line. Shouldn't have said that there." But here, far too often, the interpretation is more like "Oh no, I'm being targeted by some evil people who want to impose censorship! I must fight back!" Why do you think these interpretations vary so much? I would suggest it's because some people have a misguided notion of the goals and priorities of Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that some people have a "misguided notion of the goals and priorities of Wikipedia". I disagree, however, on which people that applies to. StuRat 17:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you may be reading more into my remarks than I said. To clarify, I agree that it would be silly to argue that horrified individuals are leaving the Desk in droves. That would be an absurd exaggeration, and one that you are absolutely correct to ridicule. There's no evidence to support such a claim, and I certainly wouldn't be caught making it.
Now, I'll repeat and emphasize the point that I did make. That is, I don't see the value in pushing to include content on the Ref Desk that offends even a few people but doesn't help any people with their questions. In other words, people who post comments on the Desk ought to err very much on the side of caution and discretion when they make remarks that don't contribute anything to answering a question. I don't think that 'only a few people will be offended' is sufficient justification. Where do you think we should draw that line? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that "somebody somewhere, might possibly be offended" is sufficient, we need evidence that somebody actually is offended, like the OP. And I just don't believe it when certain Ref Desk regulars (or sockpuppets thereof) say they are offended, they may just claim to be in order to support the deletionist POV. Give me a legit OP who is really offended, and I agree, remove the post. StuRat 15:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
What sockpuppets?83.100.158.78 20:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Complaints department

This kind of discussion is overwhelming the talk page. Can we not have a separate subpage of this talk page for those wishing to point at and discuss the appropriateness of post XYZ? Then the talk page can be left for discussing normal stuff. Carcharoth 11:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. StuRat 15:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
What is "normal stuff", other than discussing what's going on at the ref desk? We already have a talk page for the guideline work. Friday (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
If the ref desk is working, then no normal stuff. General thoughts and opinions, maybe. I just want the "this post is terrible" discussions to have their on place so that the same issues don't keep erupting on this talk page. It gets boring the fifth or sixth time. Carcharoth 15:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
"Normal stuff" includes:
  • Discussions of adding new desks.
  • Discussions of what questions belong on which desks.
  • Discussions of archiving (frequency, method, etc.).
  • Discussions of transclusions.
  • Announcements of things which affect the Ref Desk (blocks, RFCs, AN/Is, RFAs, etc.).
  • Basic Ref Desk Q&A ("How do I find my archived question ?").
StuRat 15:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Carcharoth, is it fair to say that the primary problem you see is length? If so, I agree with you there. People have been tending to get into very long, extended conversations. I don't like it much either, but as long as people are attempting to have a useful discussion about the ref desk, we should probably give them some pretty good latitude to say what they want. We could try to nudge people into being less verbose, or into moving long one-on-one conversations to their talk page. Friday (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you mean:
C, is your problem length? I agree. People talk too much. I don't like it, but as long as it's useful it can stay. But we should still tell them to talk less, or do it on user talk pages. ;-) --Maelwys 17:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think there should be a separate sub-page. If the talk page is too long we can just archive more often. One of the main purposes of a talk page is to discuss the content of the project page, and that's what we're doing. Anchoress 01:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Discussing the content of the reference desk is important. I think we should keep it on the primary talk page. -- SCZenz 01:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Could sombody make sure that there is a consistent header across the different desks - keeping the order the same (suggest alphabetical) and using either "entertainment" or "popular culture" as a heading but not both. Thanks.87.102.22.58 13:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

ok thanks.87.102.22.58 14:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The so-called asymmetry doesn't bother me so long as the exceptional 7th is Miscellaneous (or even Misc. were space at a premium) -- Deborahjay 09:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I could suggest homework - just help - not essay writing for them - aimed at pre college and lower college levels perhaps. ie not PhD level?87.102.22.58 14:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually forget homework - what about 'the world' - seem like a good idea - where is such and such a place - what is the logest river, gdp of such and such a place... These questions don't really fit in science or humanities - should I suggest it in a spearate post?87.102.22.58 14:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I would call that "Geography" (although not everyone would know that includes political geography, as well). "The World" is rather more vague, and could mean many things, like news, too. Another suggestion is "Sex and Relationships", to protect those who would be offended by such talk (who would presumably avoid the desk). StuRat 15:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We could split the Science desk into "Natural science" like geology and biology, and "Theoretical science" for the torrent of speed-of-light questions, black holes, etc --frothT C 01:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd think newbies would have trouble telling which to use. In the black hole example, for instance, aren't they natural, and pretty much proven to exist, like Cygnus X1 ? StuRat 15:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I think there was discussion about a legal issues desk once. Not legal advice just discussion of legal issues. Don't know what happened with the discussion Nil Einne 05:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Any questions?

Has anyone looked recently to see if any questions are still being asked on the RDs? Or does that not matter now? 8-)--Light current 04:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you try looking at "History" for the various Reference Desks? On the Science desks about a question an hour was being asked in the several hours before your question here. It is not clear why you would say "does that not matter now."Edison 17:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd understand if none had been answered. In science, at least, things seems to be fine. David D. (Talk) 18:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Did you not think that all this petty wrangling could be putting off the newbies?--Light current 19:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm? Has there been fighting on the reference desk? If so, we need to move it to a talk page, in order to avoid putting off the newbies. Friday (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I was contributing to ref desk for ages before I noticed this talk page. I suspect we are well hidden. Plus, it's really not that ugly. Check out the school AfD and such. David D. (Talk) 19:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but if youve got any RD on your watch list, youll have this page on it also. It depends whether newbies use watchlists I suppose. Lots of activity on mine would certainly draw my attention.--Light current 20:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Not accurate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Correct. Seems to work differently for project pages. Anyway its easy to 'discuss this page'--Light current 20:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The science ref desk has its own talk page; a redirect to this general one relating to all ref desks. So no, it never appeared on my watchlist. David D. (Talk) 20:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is clear that we have successfully satiated humanity's hunger for knowledge. All questions of any importance have been asked and answered. Well done people. →Vranak→

Do you mean the RDs have outlived their usefulness?--Light current 17:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Nah, if there really was a lull yesterday, it was probably on account of Xmas shopping and such. →Vranak—→

Template for marking deleted comments

I've created a template for marking deleted comments, please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines#Experimental template for marking a deleted comment. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the opening of the Reference desk/Entertainment (f.k.a. Reference desk/Popular Culture) on December 20, there's been some pertinent discussion there, in the form of queries. Would it be a good idea to transfer them (copied or ??) to this page? I hesitate to do so myself, without some consultation with you other editors. Thanks! -- Deborahjay 09:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

They absolutely don't belong there. Copy away, or at least delete them. --frothT C 19:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Afterthought: ummm... I was reluctant to perform the delete suggested by froth, as I don't know how that would affect our fellow editors who initiated and participated in discussion there. What I did was mark each of the three sections with a note explaining the move. OK? -- Deborahjay 03:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey! My question got moved. Why? The question (now up there was "What is popular culture?" This was actually a genuine question, so why was it moved? I'm not that fussed, but just want to put on record that it was a genuine question, and the responses, though they could be applied to the question "What should this desk be for?", were actually responding to "What is popular culture?" Carcharoth 17:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Userbox for WP:RD volunteers?

In hopes of widening the pool of participants, I've been thinking of ways to increase awareness among the Wikipedian user community of the role of Reference Desk volunteer staffer. Is there a Userbox for this and I simply didn't succeed in finding it? Or what, if anything, would you suggest? -- Thanks, Deborahjay 23:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Dont think so. Suggest man breaking rocks whilst being whipped. 8-)--Light current 00:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
What about something along the lines of Template:DYK? Collect some of the more interesting questions and answers, or article suggestions, and stick 'em in a short template for pasting on user pages.EricR 01:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving question about entertainment

This question posted on Humanities is about square dance and night clubs. Is that something which one should start moving to Entertainment - or suggest that to the OP? Or is it not the kind of entertainment envisaged? -Seejyb 01:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to move, I'd say. My understanding of the new Entertainment RD is that it's for aspects of the Entertainment industry (e.g. per its description at the top of the Project page) - while that query is about participating in a form of dance as an activity, which is Humanities turf as either culture or society. (BTW, what's "OP"?) -- Deborahjay 03:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Original post(er). It was a lapse: I'm glad I did not use the acronym on the ref desk. The fewer tech acronyms the better, I think it confuses people. --Seejyb 15:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Second opinion

I thought that there was broad agreement that we shouldn't be diagnosing people's medical conditions on the ref desk, particularly where they involve emergent conditions.

I have now twice removed comments (here and here) from the thread Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Ear_remedy_for_loud_bang. The comments were proffering a diagnosis (potentially a ruptured eardrum) and offering direction on that basis.

After removing his comment the first time, I posted a brief but polite notice on the editor's talk page and asked him to discuss the matter here if he felt that my removal was in error. He opted not to do that, but rather to replace his remark with the diagnosis but slightly less advice.

I'd appreciate some second opinions on my diagnosis of the situation. The editor involved is one with whom I have had recent disagreements, and a set of neutral eyes would be appreciated. I don't want to get into an edit war. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ten, you did the right thing. StuRat, you should have taken this issue to the talk page, rather than re-inserting your comments. The idea that we don't do medical advice has been around for a long long time, I think- why would we suddenly change our minds now, with no discussion? Ned Wilbury 17:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Since you ask, Ten, I thought StuRat's second response was fine - he said "might", he gave a relevant link, he said seek medical attention. But I predict the usual deletionist crowd will quickly chime in on your side, so I am probably wasting my time with this reply. (after ec) Ah yes, I see Ned has beaten me to the draw ! Gandalf61 17:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate what you say, but 'busted ear drum' is one of many possible causes - that the responder didn't mention - (and therefor seemingly showing his/her ignorance on this matter) - such throw away comments should be avoided. Why give a possible diagnosis when clearly they are not in a position to give a full diagnosis. No harm done no doubt - but not right - at least not right here.87.102.4.34 17:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Possible sock warning: This anon I/P has no user page, no talk page, no edits before today, and only has Ref Desk edits (a "single purpose account"). StuRat 19:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Please don't call me a 'sock', that's the third time you've done that. If you think about it...87.102.4.34
"I too agreed with it's removal.87.102.22.58 11:52" ...
"Are you "87.102.4.227" ? I wasn't including anon I/P's, as they could very well be sockpuppets. StuRat ..."
"Yes it's always 'me' - the IP varies but seems to always start with an 8. 87.102.22.58 13:31"
for instance87.102.4.34 19:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
and
"Do I detect yet another deletionist sockpuppet ? This would be number 4, I believe. StuRat ..." ..my response:"f--- o--" in reponse to a comment not agreeing with your view point.
Yet all my other edits go uncommented by you? Your comment here87.102.4.34 19:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Please register, and contribute under that name from now on (you can use a random number as your name, if you prefer those). Thus, we can check out your history and establish that you are a serious contributor. Otherwise, the policy is that the contributions of anon I/P's are to be ignored for consensus building discussions, such as this one. StuRat 19:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors are not required to register for accounts if they don't wish to. Furthermore, they are welcome to participate in talkpage discussions, although their contributions - in certain circumstances - may carry less weight than those of editors with either accounts or long-term static IP usage. Finally, I think the 'sock' claim is presumptuous; not every single IP editor who participates in talkpage discussions is an established editor seeking to hide her/his identity. Anchoress 19:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
That is false, StuRat. Anons are often ignored in formal processes like admin nominations and (sometimes!) AfD's... In a discussion like this one, they are absolutely included. If you believe policy is otherwise, show me the link. -- SCZenz 01:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
How is this about these alleged "deletionist" boogiemen, rather than being about the long-established tradition that we don't do medical advice? Ned Wilbury 17:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not medical advice, unless you consider "go see a doctor and avoid further ear trauma" to be banned medical advice. StuRat 19:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The potential problems with saying 'it might be X' when offering a diagnosis of a medical condition (particularly an emergent one) are two. In the first case, we have the reader who says, 'Oh, they said might, so it's probably not.' This will be followed by ugly news stories about how Wikipedia is responsible for little Johnny losing his hearing at Christmas. These news stories would be unfair, but that doesn't tend to stop the media.
The second case is where the readers says 'Omigod! I have a ruptured eardrum!' This is followed by a family resenting us because we made them spend eight hours of Christmas and four hundred dollars in the emergency room only to be told Johnny is fine and the ringing will clear up by morning. This wouldn't be a fair or reasonable attitude, but it would happen anyway. (Sensible people don't usually set off firecrackers next to their heads in the first place.)
It's a lose-lose situation for Wikipedia, and it's potentially harmful to our readers. There are lots of questions here that we can and should answer without hurting anyone; let's work on those. Sorry to rehash this line of reasoning again; see my comments from the last time I removed a diagnosis, here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


Ear damage could take many forms see Ear#Damage_to_the_human_ear (middle ear trauma specifically) - not just the typical 'perforated ear drum' response - a doctor would know this (hopefully), clearly the responder didn't (neither did I until I read the article) a link to that page and also Noise health effects might have been more suitable coupled with the usual 'see your doctor' message - at some point will have have someone with the intial stages of meningitus being told "you might have a case of mild food poisoning"? It is better if we send them all to qualified and competent professionals without any argument.87.102.4.34 17:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
We give neither medical advice, nor sorta-medical-advice, here. The reason is that we could hurt people if they listen to us and we're wrong. I'm inclined to suggest that even the diffs to the medical advice be removed from the page. -- SCZenz 17:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's really bizarre to me that there would be disagreement over this, when it's long been accepted that we want to stay away from giving medical advice. Those of you who object to this removal- what would satisfy you? We already say this isn't the place for medical advice- do we need to turn it into more of a "rule" somehow? What would get people to stop wanting to give out medical advice? It's already as much of a "rule" as we have, I thought. Ned Wilbury 17:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought: I don't disagree with the removal per se, and I agree that we should be cautious about giving any medical advice. That being said, I've seen all sorts of medical advice being given here, both by professionals and by laypeople, usually including the Go-see-a-doctor! message (just like in this case here). If that caveat was missing, it was added soon by another editor, but posts were rarely, if ever, removed. Given the recent history of discussions on deleting posts at the reference desk, I beg everyone to give each other a break for a while - this is really starting to look like a crusade and its anti-crusade and anti-anti-crusade etc ad nauseam. Come on! ---Sluzzelin 18:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
True. However I would offer one point which (to me) tips the scales. Our need to not have harmful content on the ref desk outweighs our need to not upset one individual editor. However, if that upset causes a huge timewasting explosion of fighting, that's an issue in itself. Everyone- please focus on the good of the desk as our primary (perhaps even only) concern. This may help keep things from getting persona. Ned Wilbury 18:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
OK simple answer: I am in favor of removing StuRats comment. Can we have a consensus here please ASAP?--Light current 18:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Short answer: read the discussion above. Long answer: on your talk page. Ned Wilbury 18:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sturat's basically just linking to a type of ear damage to educate the OP and encouraging him/her to seek medical attention.. yeah it was worded badly (if it's not perforated don't seek medical attention?) but in the future I don't think there's anything wrong with these kind of responses. In fact, saying "Go to a doctor, you might have x" is the ideal medical advice on the reference desk and sturat's response was quite close. But you're right- unfortunately it was a little misleading, and I'd encourage him to repost but make it more clear what exactly he's saying. --frothT C 18:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

:Well I know we shouldnt vote on this, but How about a quick straw poll to guage opinion?--Light current 18:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

My two cents. Non-negotiable. We do not respond to any question that asks "I have the medical or legal problem" (or "My friend, mother, monkey has . . .") We need a template for that case and any discussion is deletable. Now if the OP has enough smarts to reword it to a general question like "What sorts of injuries can result from a firecracker exploding near one's ear?" then that is answerable. We should not reword it for him, either explicitely or implicitedly. We do not tell him nor hint to him that he might reword it. I am neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist. I think that we can have a few rules for the RD and I think we can and should enforce the rules we invent. Wikipedia is not an anarchy. --Justanother 18:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Question is, is Sturats modified comment much different from this:

Only a doctor can really evaluate damage that has been done to your ear. S/he will tell you what treatment (if any) is going to improve the condition. It is important to get this looked at as it may be a perforation.--Light current 18:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If not, I change my earlier opinion and maybe it should be allowed to stay.--Light current 18:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Medical + Advice = Medical advice. Wish I could put it in Tex or LaTex or whatever it is you'all use. --Justanother 18:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
-- That was easy. --Justanother 19:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem I see with StuRat's wording is that he says "You might have <some condition>. If so, it requires medical attention.." We want to avoid this with a ten foot pole. His answer can be read as "You only need medical attention IF.." when all we want to offer is "Get medical attention." Is it the worst answer in the world? Of course, not. Not by a long shot. But it's the kind of answer we want to avoid. Ned Wilbury 18:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Ned, it is possible to misinterpret answers. For example, your answer here could be interpreted as giving the questioner advice on how to take drugs. I don't think you should be so hard line on StuRat when some of your own responses are borderline. Gandalf61 19:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
We should focus on content, not the contributor. I'm not being hard line on StuRat, I'm being hard line on medical advice. Ned Wilbury 19:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What I actually said was:

"You might have a perforated eardrum, which requires medical attention. In any case, avoid any further loud noises or ear trauma. StuRat 13:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)"

This does not say, or imply, that they don't need to see a doctor in any other case. It simply suggests that they see a doctor, with a perforated eardrum being one possibly reason why medical attention would be required. StuRat 19:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

--Justanother 19:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The point of that is because we aren't doctors and we want to DEFINATELY avoid giving people bad medical advice, it's their health at stake! But why can't we tell people to actually see a doctor? It's impossible to go wrong with that kind of advice, and it might encourage them to go even if they weren't going to before. It seems to me that our duty isn't to ignore the question it's to get these people to actual medical help --frothT C 20:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure. The best answer is "Go see a doctor", rather than "Here's a bunch of my own opinions. And you should see a doctor." Ned Wilbury 20:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
No, if we don't give any indication that it could be a severe problem, they'll think our advice is just silliness required by lawyers (especially if we give the same "go see a doctor" advice to everyone with a hangnail). It is thus imperative that we give them some indication as to how severe the problem could be, so they see the situation as serious enough that they do actually seek medical attention. My goal here is to get them the treatment they need, and also avoid any legal liability for Wikipedia. I believe my final response was an excellent answer, with both those goals being met. StuRat 20:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Was this your final response? If so, it's flawed for the reasons I gave above. Your "in any case" advise is avoiding loud noises. Your "if you have a perforated eardrum" advise is "see a doctor". ALL we want to say is "see a doctor". Do you see the difference? Ned Wilbury 20:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
No, my final reponse was my final response. That would not be the first one listed, but the second one listed, is that so hard to follow ? Here is yet again:

"You might have a perforated eardrum, which requires medical attention. In any case, avoid any further loud noises or ear trauma. StuRat 13:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)"

StuRat 22:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
We should give them some reason why we believe they should see a doctor --frothT C 21:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
That's kind of the point, actually. We absolutely shouldn't be giving them 'some indication as to how severe the problem could be'. We shouldn't be giving guidance on whether or not symptoms seem 'serious enough'. The crux of the matter is that we're not doctors and we shouldn't be suggesting diagnoses or triaging patients based on their self-reported symptoms. If they have an emergent medical problem – that is, something that's bothering them right now – that's serious enough that they're seeking advice about it, then we should be directing them to people who are qualified, competent, and insured to give that advice. Period. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You're going to get people killed with that policy:
Q: "I have a pimple on my butt, what should I do ?"
A: "Go see a doctor."

Q: "My right side has gone numb and I have slurred speech, what should I do ?"
A: "Go see a doctor."
Results: quite possibly the person with the pimple goes to the doctor and the one having a stroke doesn't, because we've not given him any reason to think his condition is any more serious. StuRat 22:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but if someone asked about a pimple on his ****. Would you still say 'see a doctor'?--Light current 22:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
We'd feel pretty stupid if it turned out to be skin cancer, wouldn't we? Even if the 'pimple' diagnosis is correct, we'd probably get one useless folk remedy, three people arguing about whether or not he should lance it, one person saying 'burn it off with a lighter', another guy saying 'squirt it with Windex', and maybe one person giving the right answer. At least send the guy to a real live pharmacist—they're trained to answer the "I've got a pimple" question, and the guy will have to go to the pharmacy anyway. Also, depending on what's under your asterisks, he might want to see a doctor anyway. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes you are quite right of course on your first point. The other point is: its a simple pimple (hey I got a rhyme!) But when we are children, do we not seek advice from our mothers? Mummy says: Its ok Ill kiss it better( ie its not serious enough to bother the doctor). I know we are not peoples mummies, but where do we draw the line?--Light current 01:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
We draw it where Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer says. We do not give medical advice; we cannot give the same advice that anyone's mother would give them. -- SCZenz 01:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok then what about: I tend to fart a lot in public. What should I do?--Light current 01:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Template needed - "The Reference Desk cannot address questions that solicit medical advice. If you have any question about the medical condition of yourself or another, you are urged to ask a medical professional not an online encyclopedia." Make it clearly look like a rubber stamp answer - colored box, everything. --Justanother 04:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This topic amazes me. In many ways the medical questions are handled no differently than the rest of the answers here. Our basic mode of ref desk operation is a bunch of intellectually cocky guys shooting from the hip at whatever question is posted. Sometimes we know it off the top of our head, sometimes maybe we bother to actually look up the answer. In other cases, if we are not sure of the answer, we make a joke out of it or point where the enquirer might find it. But a lot of our answers are simply the same answers you would get if you ask the guy next to you at the bar or on the train. However, if his answer is wrong, at least you recognize the source and the level of obligation for accuracy (iffy and none, respectively). A major problem here is that there are conflicting signals to the reader and a mixture of reliable info and nonsense, and some of our readers are heartbreakingly ignorant or naive and clearly do not recognize that the level of accuracy and responsibility here is often that of Cliff Clavin. You have to be here for a while before you recognize that the same guy that can give you the best answer to a computer science question is clueless about, say, evolution or poisoning, but may be just as willing to give you an answer as if he knows what he is talking about. Why is it so easy to recognize when someone is bullshitting you about a chemistry answer and not recognize when someone is bullshitting you about a medical or biology answer? Too many of us have no inhibitions about giving an opinion about something we know little about because there is no penalty for spouting crap. If someone calls it crap and explains why, he risks being chided for "incivility". I don't know the answers to all the medical questions and I dont try to answer the ones I dont know-- many of you without medical degrees seem less far less inhibited. All of us need a better sense of the boundaries of our knowledge. It is ok not to answer when you dont know the answer. When we bullshit we need to get called on it. It isn't that we shouldn't offer medical advice here with the proper caveats, but when you don't know the answer you should not feel obligated to offer one anyway. We should admire precision and accuracy of answers more than quickness to give them. alteripse 05:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example of where both types of advice can be useful:
Q: My grandpa had to go to the hospital because of a "TIA", what's that ?
A: I think it's some kind of a stroke.
A: That's a transient ischemic attack, which means...
Now, the first answer does give some info, but isn't very specific. If that was the only answer given, it would still be better than nothing. The second answer, of course, is far more specific. Of course, depending on the age of the OP, that might actually be too much info for them. Thus, both the "layman's answer" and the "expert's answer" have a place. StuRat 05:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
It's worth noting that that isn't an example of medical advice, though. The posters would be answering a factual question about a medical topic, not offering a diagnosis or advising the questioner what to do about it. I encourage people to answer these sorts of questions where possible—even if we screw up nobody gets hurt. (One of us looks dumb, but we're mostly used to that.) To be clear, I don't think anyone believes we should stop answering all questions related to medicine. The two things we shouldn't be doing are diagnosing ailments and prescribing courses of action (beyond 'seek professional advice'). Even then, I'd be fairly relaxed about giving advice to or about individuals already in a doctor's care, because at least we'd know there is a professional monitoring the situation. ('My sister has been diagnosed with disease X; her doctor has recommended treatment Y; does anyone have any experience with Y, or know of any other options?' might be an example of such a question.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I think TenOfAllTrades and Justanother should both go see a doctor. Of course can't I get into why, as that would be giving medical advice. In fact, when you think about it, "Go see a doctor" is in and of itself medical advice. If an OP has a case of the hiccups, should s/he be advised to "Go see a doctor"? (I'm sure the AMA wouldn't mind!) Seriously though, has anyone bothered to notice that the "If requesting medical or legal advice ask a doctor or lawyer instead" instruction falls under the "How to ask a question" and not the "How to answer a question" heading? Once the OP has ignored the guidelines and has gone ahead and asked the question anyway, my opinion is that our primary guideline should be to Do as much help and as little harm as possible. If a questioner asks "I smoke three packs a day and lately I've been coughing up blood", do you really think it's in the best interests of the OP to state simply: "Go see a doctor", without at least advising him or her to, at the very least, take it easy on the smoking? C'mon! Many people are scared to death of doctors and many others can't afford them. A friend of mine's mother had blood flowing out of her ass or over a year, yet she was so terrified of doctors that she eventually died due to a massive cancerous tumour that could have easily been removed if she had just SEEN A DAMNED DOCTOR just a few months earlier. At the very least, we should allowed to give a common sense, layman's opinion, such as: "That sounds EXTREMELY serious. I would STRONGLY URGE you to see a doctor IMMEDIATELY". Imagine if she was the OP: Q: "I've got blood flowing out of my ass for over year now, can this be a sign of something serious?" -- A: "Go see a doctor". Well, we all know what good that would do. Loomis 15:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely with Loomis. This guy's got to be the most intelligent human being on Wikipedia. All hail Loomis. :) 209.135.110.24 17:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove bite

Let's take a specific example: Would you consider the marketing for a product, say, your finished homework, to be the same as a service, say, doing your homework for you ? StuRat 18:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Nibble nibble. Ummmm, newbie are tasty. --Justanother 19:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the above because it is a disingenuous sardonic elitist WP:BITE. IMO. Of course, IMO (sardonic replies should be limited to our back desk.) And in no way addresses the question. And we all know it is homework. If you want to point that out then do so gently but anchoress already did a good joke of asking for a more specific question. IMO. --Justanother 19:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a WP:BITE, but a serious answer, giving an example, which also happens to imply that the question is homework. I could just as easily have put it as:

Let's take a specific example: Would you consider the marketing for a product, say, a finished floor polisher, to be the same as a service, say, polishing your floors for you ?

StuRat 19:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Then why didn't you use that instead of restoring your bite? I will, needless to say, not restore my reply. --Justanother 19:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't consider that a bite, particularly. Perhaps a mild, humorous scolding at best. I don't have a problem with it, but if someone disagrees strongly enough to remove something, it's best to discuss, not just put it back. Ned Wilbury 20:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Not a bite but an oh-so-clever nibble at the expense of the OP. My thought, save the "cleverness" for the talk pages and, for the RD page itself, just answer the damn question or kindly inform why it cannot be answered here. --Justanother 20:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe we specifically discussed this and decided on a looser standard on WP:BITE when dealing with trolls, people who post their homework, etc. StuRat 20:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, different people will have different standards of course. This is probably a good example of why we can't have exact rules- we just have general guidelines and we discuss the borderline cases. Ned Wilbury 20:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Except that the discussion should happen before the deletion, not after. StuRat 20:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that. It depends on circumstances. Ned Wilbury 20:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, with only serious disruption (making it impossible for the Ref Desk to continue to operate) requiring a speedy delete. StuRat 22:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
"a looser standard on WP:BITE when dealing with . . . people who post their homework." That is ludicrous. The HW posters are just n00bs, nothing more, and deserve the same gentleness that any n00b is entitled to; not "aren't we so 133t" subtle digs. That is called rudeness. And I have done it myself and I have, through this process, realized that we should just knock it off and answer the question in a somewhat professional manner that brings honor to the project as a whole. And a bit of harmless banter is OK. That wasn't harmless. Maybe "mostly harmless" but not harmless. --Justanother 22:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The standard homework template is just as rude: StuRat 12:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

{{homework}}

Please do your own homework.
Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know.
Whaddaya mean, it looks fine to me. Laff, I fixed it - thanks for pointing that out. You were right, it was bitish. So why not just fix it? That is what we do here when we are not in-fighting (smile). --Justanother 13:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The "Welcome to ..." part implies "based on the ignorance apparent in your post, you must be a newbie". StuRat 03:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Not everyone reads an implicit insult into every statement. --Justanother 04:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
No, but you do, when it's something I said. StuRat 09:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, OK, if you say that there was no "Look how clever I am at pointing out that this is a homework question" in your reply. But I think you might agree that that was exactly what was there and perhpas we only disagree that on whether that is rude. Anywho, if you do Christmas, have great one, otherwise enjoy the season! --Justanother 15:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I do find the subtle implication that's a question is homework to be much nicer than a blatant assertion. I prefer Festivus, as it includes the airing of grievances, Merry Festivus ! StuRat 15:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Meta-commment from Science Desk

There's more to anatomy than blood. What answer were you looking for other than "grasshopper guts"? Are you just being silly? Please only ask reference desk questions when you have a legitimate question. Ned Wilbury 20:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If it is replaced I won't revert, but this sort of discussion belongs on this page and not the desk. -THB 21:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree it should be here. But theres nothin to discuss now between you two-- is there? 8-)--Light current 21:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, part of that comment was meta-discussion, sure, so it maybe more properly belongs here. However, as for the point of the issue, that question looks more like a joke and less like a real question as it goes on. Isn't there a bit in the guideline about not using the ref desk as a chat board? Ned Wilbury 22:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes but Ned, dont you see you could be stirring things up again by posting like this? I would just forget about it. It will go away in 12 hrs if you dont keep picking at it (that is not medical advice) 8-)--Light current 22:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Petition to recall User:Friday from position as administrator

A petition to recall User:Friday from his position as administrator has been placed on his talk page. Interested parties are requested to sign and/or comment on it here: User talk:Friday#Petition to recall User:Friday from the position of admin. -THB 22:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Petition to tell you three to knock off turning what could be a nice effort to find common ground as to the best way to run the RD into a fractional personal crusade and witch hunt and if you'all didn't start it (nanner nanner) then you sure as shootin are milking it for all it is worth. Both Friday and SCZenz have admitted errors and have corrected themselves and been corrected by others and accepted that correction. Show me where you three have budged an inch or accepted any offered correction. Why not just back away from this battle that you are the main ones fighting at this point and withdraw your "petition" and let's get this guideline wrapped up instead of wasting more time with in-fighting. --Justanother 22:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
If nobody else signs we may do just that. However, if others feels as we do, that numerous Admins, Friday included, have abused their Admin authority to punish the inclusionists and try to score a "win" for the deletionists, then the petition will stand. As for the guidelines, anything we add to them is quickly deleted, so we can't have any input there, can we ? StuRat 23:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
...now we're up to 4. StuRat 02:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
...now 7. StuRat 01:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
We only need six! Why do we wait? Come in No 13- your time is up 8-))--Light current 01:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
No sorry! Friday has exceeded his authority on a number of occaisions. This is not just about the guidelines- its about Fridays attitude and action in general! 8-(--Light current 00:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Either way, how does the reference desk benefit from the announcenement of a petition on a particular admin, and how will your cause benefit from this or from the use of belligerent language and spirit? It frustrates me when editors are being blocked over this debate, and watching your bold attempts to 'score a win' is painful to me in the light of this assymetry. Are you wiki-martyrs? This wont work, and draws you away from providing valuable help at the reference desk. ---Sluzzelin 00:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
OK tell us (politely) where to stick it (our petition)!--Light current 00:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
lol Light current. I have no clue, nor do I know whether it's appropriate to stick it here or not, nor do I care. I'm asking how it will help the reference desk, and whether resuming positions and taking actions will help find a solution that works for everyone. Sorry, if I came across as rude. ---Sluzzelin 00:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
You are certainly not rude my friend! Fridays actions have impacted the RDs sure, but the actions have also impacted other areas of WP as quoted on his/her talk page in the submission. I invite youu to peruse Faradays Fridays contributions--Light current 01:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The goal here, whether Friday runs for re-election or not, and whether he wins or is defeated (if he does run), is for the Admins on the deletionist side to finally understand that filing RFCs, TFDs, MFDs, AN/I's, launching sockpuppets, doing non-consensus deletions, blocking users, etc., are not valid methods to use to try to "win" the inclusionist/deletionist debate. If they want to participate in this debate, then they should act as editors and put away their "big sticks". If they want to act as Admins, then they shouldn't participate in the debate. You can't have both, the conflict of interest inherent in that behavior is simply unacceptable. And, incidentally, getting a fellow Admin to block or otherwise punish the inclusionists instead of doing it yourself doesn't make it right, either. StuRat 02:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
With the exception of personally using block buttons, none of the above are administrative actions. I've given the blocks up, personally, since I am personally involved in the debate; so I guess I've taken your advice already. Using sockpuppets is unacceptable for anyone, but you'd need evidence to throw around accustations like that. -- SCZenz 17:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Yea, but you still try your best to get your Admin buddies to put blocks on us, don't you ? Like your recent AN/I complaint about me calling into question whether an anon I/P with little history is a sock. StuRat 03:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Message: If you are having trouble with admins you are doing something wrong - it's as simple as that. Had you ever considered that you might be in line for a block for your behaviour on this desk?87.102.4.126 12:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Do I smell a sock?Edison 20:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Your statement assumes that all Admins are absolutely perfect. Many people at this desk have had problems with the actions of deletionist Admins (yourself included), so I tend to think that at least part of the problem is with the Admins. StuRat 12:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Seems like an overreaction. And I am not familiar with such petitions having any effect. RfC and RFARB are the routs I have heard of, and Arb has sometimes resulted in penalties against other than the person it is aimed at. Edison 20:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't see either of those helping. Heck, one of the worst offender, Radiant!, is even running for ArbComm. StuRat 03:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Archiving, Please

This article needs archiving more often. 210kb long.martianlostinspace 12:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have it on good authority that this page was recently over a BILLION kilobytes long. ←Vranak–

Proposed policy for answering questions involving drugs, etc.

It's realy starting to get depressing hearing all these questions on the reference desk about drugs. Really, Wikipedia could get in quite a bit of trouble if someone does something and kills themselves because someone told them about it on the reference desk. I mean, at a real library reference desk, if someone walked up and said something like "can I get high off of this substance?" would the librarian really tell them? Seriously, there should be a policy on replies to questions about drugs. Because, what if someone asks a question, and someone else gives them a crappy answer, and the person tries it out and gets themselves killed, and then someone related to them sues Wikipedia for giving out the advice that got them killed. That would really tarnish Wikipedia's reputation. Maybe there should be a policy that all questions about drug use should be deleted, because they kind of come under tha category of medical/legal advice. They come under this category because they could have serious medical and/or legal repercussions. It makes sense in a way, doesn't it? Anyone agree with me? Ilikefood 17:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive 19

I've cut out a chunk (roughly Dec 15 to Dec 18) and sent it to archive (19) heaven. I indend to add more to archive 19 as it seems that the archives should be longer that what I have cut. The back and forths here have been quite ... well, Kb intensive. If anyone has a suggestion as to how far archive 19 should reach down to then please advise. I don't think that three days is reasonable but I'd like some input from others. Thanks, --hydnjo talk 02:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say just archive in 32k chunks and sod it! 8-)--Light current 02:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI: removed trolling, bad faith question

[1] Because of the last two posts by the original poster (who, of you check her/his userpage, has a history of complaining about bad faith, time wasting questions, then posting them her/himself). I believe this is the right thing to do, but I won't oppose if anyone restores. Merry Xmas etc. Anchoress 03:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah good call. I was duped as well 8-(--Light current 04:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I did make the effort of answering in good faith, and I was chagrined to see the entire thing removed. I'm too new here to know whether it would be appropriate to restore the original question with only my response (for whoever might subsequently find it of value) and a note that this doesn't warrant frivolous discussion. I suppose the serious replies only template suggested above wouldn't be appropriate here as that didn't come from the original poster...? Please advise! -- Deborahjay 05:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
No this was an obvious troll post. Unfortunately we didnt see it early enough. It would not be proper to restore it!--Light current 05:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Deborahjay, I personally have no problem with your redacted restoration; my only concern is that the restored thread (to which you made a good-faith response, no argument from me) not degenerate again. The reason I didn't redact the speculative response posts and trolling from the original poster was because I didn't want to take responsibility for watching it to ensure it didn't get messy again. Would you do that, since you reposted the thread? Watch it and remove/redact trolling comments or comments that could make an opening for trolling from the OP (original poster). See, from my experience on WP, one of the tricks some trolls use on the RD is to ask dubious questions, but to wait until the more prurient elements of the topic are broached by other, often good-faith posters, before really digging in. Rather than leading us down the road to perdition, they're following. The end result is the same, however. But I fully support your attempts to keep the desk on topic and inclusive. Happy holidays! Anchoress 05:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome guidance, Anchoress. It happens that AIDS is one of a handful of topics on which I'll go the distance. The amount of misinformation out there is dreadful, and even worse, can have deadly consequences. If a trollish query and discussion might attract some readers who'll inadventently pick up some meaningful information (e.g. that the disease can be contracted via het as well as homosexual acts, I believe the efforts are worth it. Count me in here. -- Deborahjay 19:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Anchoress - just wanted to note appreciation for how you have handled this one. Lots of WP:AGF, lots of patience and careful explanation - much better than the "I removed this and I dare anyone to say I made a mistake" approach that we have seen so much of lately. An object lesson in how these dubious RD questions should be handled. Thank you. Gandalf61 18:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Those are very kind words to wake up to after my nap, thanks, Gandalf61. I always try to work in the best interests of Wikipedia. Anchoress 06:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of other people's comments from RD is not good faith. I have restored my comments. Don't delete them again. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, please do not characterize other editors efforts to improve the reference desk as "vandalism" as you did in your edit summary[2] Surely you are aware that there has been a great deal of discussion on this matter recently. Having not been a part of that effort, are you now here to declare that the work of those taking a contrary position to yours was "not good faith". Other editors have taken the time to present arguments, have moderated or amplified their positions, in short, they have engaged in discussion. Are you unwilling to do the same? Perhaps you have already read over all the arguments yet found them unconvincing—and that's perfectly reasonable. It is unreasonable though to think that bald assertions of "not good faith" and peremptory commands would sway opinion or alter positions which have been laid out through patient discussion.EricR 21:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, EricR. Anchoress 06:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
LOL. Anchoress 06:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

So it's okay to call my comments trolling but it's not okay to call the removal of my comments vandalism? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe your comments were called trolling. I believe the question was. Do you disagree that the question was trolling? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The gloating afterwards was trolling, but all of the responses were made in good faith. But only selected answers were restored. Apparently my responses were in the trolling category. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe you assume too much. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Folks, to further explain my actions, this was my reasoning: the trolling comments by the original poster indicated to me that the original question was asked in bad faith; that, in my opinion, justified the removal of the whole thread. But, as I said in my original post at top, I would not and do not oppose restoration. Having said that, I sincerely and wholeheartedly apologise for any and all offense and hurt that resulted from my good-faith actions. Anchoress 17:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Anchoress, I appreciate your comments. My entire concern had to do with selective restoration, which left me with the only possible conclusion, that my comments were considered trolling. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
What Zoe characterizes as "the only possible conclusion" [sic; italics mine] disregards previous discussion here (subsequently explained individually on Z's talk page), in which I asked for guidance in restoring what I assessed as a potentially valuable query on AIDS. I had not understood from Anchoress' response (above), that - as Zoe writes to me repeatedly - it's against WP practice to "delete others' comments on RD." My understanding of "redact" (i.e. rather than remove or revert en bloc) was to edit out the comments related to the troll-content text, and perhaps that isn't what Anchoress intended? Please point me towards the guidelines on this matter, so that I can study them, obtain clarification if necessary, and comply in the future. -- Deborahjay 04:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem. As to your concern, I think DeborahJay explained it more than adequately in her response to you on your talkpage; she is a relatively new editor doing her best while learning the ropes. I'm sure she's as sorry as I am for any inadvertent hurt or offense, and if she has not already apologised for your distress, I am sure she would if it is necessary in order to smooth over any bumps in this road to a better encyclopedia. Anchoress 18:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Anchoress, I respectfully submit that there is still "a problem," namely Zoe's treatment of me. Z. is a more veteran Wikipedia editor than I, yet I already know the guideline that questionable edits involving deletion be discussed with other editors on a Talk page forum, and I did so. If the UTC timestamps correctly adjust for differences in time zone, your support of my edit, which you expressed both in this forum and in the body of the query itself, included the "selective deletion of comments" which is the soi-disant "entire concern" in Zoe's distress – therefore it's highly unlikely that Z was unaware of this corroboration. Nevertheless, Zoe went ahead and publicly charged me with "vandalism and the complete opposite of good faith", thus showing no awareness of nor any regard for my efforts. Rather, Zoe opted to extend no good faith, in editing and towards fellow editors. It seems to me that Z.'s distress is self-inflicted, caused by a failure to adhere responsibly to Wikipedia practices. Meanwhile, I'm having terrible difficulty getting past Zoe's demeaning and possibly false allegations. My own distress at this treatment is compounded by chagrin at my naivete for not having allowed for the possibility of bullies operating here, and immense regret at how much time and effort it's taken me to compose what I hope is a fit response. -- Deborahjay 09:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Response on Deborahjay's talkpage. Anchoress 15:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Concluded there, with thanks. -- Deborahjay 06:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
All the above raises some very interesting issues. THe original Q seemed to be in GF. Only later did it appear to be the hook for a troll thread. At this point, the obvious troll portions were deleted and the orignial Q was then treated as a normal Q. This appears to be the preferred action of both Zoe and Deborah.
I get the impression that Anchoress view is that once a troll thread has been identified, all traces inc the original Q should be expunged.
One clear lesson from this is that it is almost impossible to tell a troll by a single posting and therefore GF should be assumed on all first postings IMO. 8-)--Light current 18:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I find it trivial to determine a troll after a single posting. Here is how I determined that the AIDS question was a troll:
  1. The question was about bestiality
  2. The poster has a history of disruption
  3. The poster has a history of disruption of the reference desk that I had previously reverted
The harder question was how I determined the users' first question was a troll:
  1. It mentioned gulls and bagels.
I suggest that responses to the question by Proficient and Light Current, were actively unhelpful (per WP:DFTT, as they both assumed the poster was talking about sex, thus making him a troll). I suggest that per WP:AGF repsonses by Zoe and Deborahjay were both acceptable. However, one is no longer required to WP:AGF in the face of evidence to the contrary, and it is Zoe's option to chooose if (s)he prefered her question, and it's implicit assumption of good faith, to remain present in the wake of the trolls obvious delight at haven gotten people to talk about their sick little game. I further suggest that people refrain from chatting with the trolls. Answers like Deborahjay's are perfect, and provide trolls with no food. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Could you point me to the first Q It mentioned gulls and bagels.. I dont think this was the same IP was it?--Light current 19:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
[3], [4] [5]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
They were from a dynamic IP. There is no reason to link them all as one person. So your assumption is wrong. You cant tell!--Light current 19:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
20/20 hindsight proves me right and you wrong. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes theyre all from the same IP, but how can you be certain thaey are the same person?--Light current 19:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Never mind. It looks highly probable.--Light current 20:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Date insert bot

Looks like the bot (I can't remember its name :( ) hasn't been inserting the big "December xx" headings - what happened to it? —AySz88\^-^ 18:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to do it tomorrow (until it gets sorted out). I wonder if it could have anything to do with the new desk (bot confusion?). --hydnjo talk 18:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
RefDeskBot (talk · contribs) is more than just a date adding bot, the desks are already pushing 300 kb each after a mere 3 days of bot inactivity --71.247.120.5 22:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah (sigh) I know, which is why I have no intention of tackling it today. :-() --hydnjo talk 01:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Date headers are now caught up through Dec 26. Dec 27 (UTC) is due in about 2 hours and I'll do that at that time. I've not been paying close attention to "active days" that the bot has been leaving behind. Any input on that would be helpful to me for archiving. --hydnjo talk 22:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll run the bot to catch up with the actual archiving later today (UTC) - sorry about the problems regarding the bot (my internet tends to break, and the server isn't very reliable either :( ) Martinp23 01:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
OK Martin, I'll back off a while so as to not screw up the bot-man! --hydnjo talk 21:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It's running now, very slowly :(. Martinp23 23:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Woo! Finished after two hours (and I'm very tired :( ). In the process, I've moved the bot to a new system which should speed it up (I'm now using some code I wrote for NPW). Hopefully it's all gone well, and I'll set it up to do the new entertainment desk tomorrow later on today. Thanks, Martinp23 01:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

OP confusion

There seem to be two mutually exclusive responses at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Heavy water production so WTF is poor Anthonysenn to make of this? Has our quarreling now become so divisive that it has slopped over to the desks themselves? Can't one of the responders back off and just say sorry? I know from this map that there's supposed to be a forest around here but these damn trees...  :-( --hydnjo talk 18:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

StuRat had the general principles of isotope separation correct, but got the details of the specific method for producing heavy water wrong. Hipocrite corrected this, but prefaced his correction with "Right, except no", which could cause confusion about which parts of StuRat's response he was correcting. Trying to help, I have added a short clarification note to the Science RD which will, I hope, remove any confusion. Gandalf61 22:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Gandalf, for jumping in and providing your excellent summary. Your clarifying response about electrolysis is also cited in WP's heavy water article which is an additional benefit. :-) --hydnjo talk 23:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, adding a correction afterwards is the right way to handle mistakes. StuRat 16:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Stu, I'm just trying to understand your position. Do you think that the poster of an incorrect response has any obligation to go back and amend or extend their response for the sake of clarity or do you feel that it is up to others to try and clarify the situation? --hydnjo talk 23:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Everyone should list the info they believe to be correct, with any links they can find, then leave it to the OP to decide which is right. There isn't any need to bring it up here, unless the discussion degenerates into nastiness (which we want to keep away from the newbies). StuRat 18:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather see us refer to articles or reliable sources than just say what we believe to be correct. I remember some people mentioning some rather odd things that they "believed to be correct", yet we were unable to turn up any evidence to support that belief. Friday (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Stu, that is a plain and simple answer which I think is pretty lame. "Leave it to the OP" indeed! I see, when any of we volunteers find that we have mistakenlly responded then in the face of a cited (or otherwise genuine and robust) response showing that our response was mistaken then our first response should be to cover our asses so that the community will think that in some obscure way, our response is vindicated (shoot, they never really cited a rigorous claim to make my response entirely wrong). Screw it, leave it to the OP to sort it out. I know that there's a lot of "responses" in there but hey, you figure it out. --hydnjo talk 01:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Logic behind order of desks in header?

Is there some sort of logic as to why the desks are ordered the way they are in the header of each desk? It's not alphabetical since Science comes first followed by Mathmatics. So what is the thinking behind this? Amount of traffic for the hard subjects, then Misc. thrown in at the end since it's a catchall? The reason I ask is because up until a few days ago, Humanities was first and now it's Science. Dismas|(talk) 15:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like an attempt to keep similar things together. Math and Computers and Science are related. Humanities and Entertainment are related. Misc is related to everything. StuRat 16:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, Language is included inline with Humanities and Entertainment which makes sense. --hydnjo talk 23:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment of concern

I'm going to ask Light Current to reverse this addition to the section Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Is it possible to turn woman into a sex addict? section. When a user asks a question implying they're contemplating a criminal act, it's either trolling or something far worse—in these cases, giving a factual answer to the question may be appropriate, but I think making a joke of it reflects poorly on the entire reference desk. Comments? -- SCZenz 02:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've discussed the matter with Light Current at his talk page and at mine. He's declined to remove the comment. I really don't think joking about drugging someone to make them sexually compliant—i.e., rape—is appropriate... in fact, it's quite beyond the pale. I find it offensive personally, and I think it is reasonable to expect a significant number of our readers will as well. In so far as LC has admitted that the comment was his way of "chatting" with someone he suspected was a known troll, I don't see any reason to keep the comment... and I do see reasons to remove it. Can anyone explain why I am misunderstanding the serious subject matter being joked about, or explain why the reference desk is better with the comment than without. If not, in do course I shall remove it myself. -- SCZenz 02:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as improving the reference desk, this remark is indefensible. Light current, you are not looking like a reasonable editor when you act this way. Ned Wilbury 02:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
OK we'll let others judge. But collectively.--Light current 02:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - IMO this (and the monkey fucking thread) is why trollish questions are so dicey; while they would be fine if we could restrict ourselves to straightforward, factual answers, but some editors just can't resist feeding the trolls. I say prune such threads ruthlessly. Anchoress 02:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This was clearly a trollish question, and should have been removed nearly immediately. Slying asking the poster if he was the "mask troll" is feeding the troll. Arguing about the semantics of the question or any replies is ludicrous. Keeping the question "live" pending "consensus" is completely unnecessary (and unworkable - should we wait 3 days?). LC's initial response does not include significant parts of the quoted article and (out of context) can be read as an affirmative response. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Entire question removed

The question was going further and further out of control, with LC insisting on arguing about irrelevancies like the intention of the poster and the exact definition of rape. I think it was very unfitting to have such discussions when an illegal, offensive, and abusive act was being proposed. Since LC (and others) have indicated they suspect the original question was trolling anyway, I think it's best to just drop this one and move on. -- SCZenz 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hang on. Just becuase you are losing an argument doesnt mean you can wipe the board and say 'I win'. I dont think there was any consensus to remove that material from the page. Please restore it until consensus has been achieved. I ask you to think very seriously about this one SCZ. You do not have a strong case!--Light current 04:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
We shouldn't have been arguing on that subject—in fact, we shouldn't be having debates at all, but the subject matter made things worse It was inappropriate and increasingly irrelevant. I saw no other way to stop things from getting worse. Shall we pause now and see what others have to say? -- SCZenz 04:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, you were the one who was inflating the Q to include rape and all other sorts of nefarious activites not even mentioned in the OP, and continuopusly painting horrific scenes that can only have come from you as they were not mewntioned at all in the OP..
I was responding to your overreaction be negating your arguments one by one. Since you seemed to be losing the argument, you then deleted all content. This is not the action of a responsible Admin SCZ. and you damn well know it. I ask you once more to retore the original Q and responses. The discourse between us can be put here if you like. But I want everything restored. 8-((--Light current 04:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Why would anyone want this restored? This content does not improve the ref desk. Ned Wilbury 04:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
It should not have been removed in the first place. Neither should the discussions abuut the Q have been remove it. This is simple outright CENSORSHIP by one person--Light current 04:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the point. The content does not improve the ref desk. This is more important than your right to say whatever you want. No amount of capital letters or stubborn insistence will change that. Ned Wilbury 04:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Entire stuff replaced

I'm not sure who copied everything to the talk page here (see below), but I want to be clear I have no problem with that. Perhaps I should even have done it myself. -- SCZenz 04:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It was I. Yes you should. 8-(--Light current 04:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
If it being copied somewhere, rather than simply removed, makes a big difference to you... then I shall make that my default action in the future. -- SCZenz 05:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes it halves the damage 8-(--Light current 05:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to turn woman into a sex addict?

Original posts (the following, down to the line, - is what we are discussing)

If I inject some of form parasite into an unwilling women say Toxoplasma_gondii, would she turn into a sex addict. If I'm caught would I go to prison? 202.168.50.40 01:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

With regard to your second question, I would hope so. --hydnjo talk 01:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Extending my response out of order (if I'm allowed): I had no idea that there would be such controversy about this trollish subject matter and had hoped (naively) that saying such behavior would result in prison time (if caught) would end the thread. It seems that that is not the case at all and that the un-crisp boundaries of proper vs criminal behavior are now being debated under this heading and that is wrong in this venue. If I had any hand in this by remarking that it was "my hope" that such behavior (implicitly) would be criminal then I'm sorry for inflaming this sorry subject and it's resultant debate. If on the other hand something useful happens well, that's WP.--hydnjo talk 03:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Well you have linked the appropriate page. Have you read it? Esp this bit:

For women:

* A tendency to be more outgoing, friendly and more promiscuous * They are considered more attractive to men compared with non-infected controls

"In short, it can make men behave like alley cats and women behave like sex kittens" — Nicky Boulter

--Light current 01:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, your're not planning on wearing a mask whilst you do this dirty deed are you? 8-)--Light current 01:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Administering any substance with the capability of changing someone's physiology or mental state without their knowledge or consent is illegal in most jurisdictions. It doesn't have to be deadly in order to be considered poison. It's 'administering a noxious substance', and it's a crime. Using the altered state to commit another crime severely compounds the penalty. Anchoress 02:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Reactions (not answers) to original posts (should have been here in 1st place.).

Drugging people is illegal, and drugging people in order to make them sexually compliant is considered rape (in the countries I'm familiar with, including the United States). See date rape and date rape drug. -- SCZenz 02:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Since when has injection of parasites been called drugging? Also drugging is not called rape over here. Like when I went to have a tooth extracted, I was not raped as far as I know 8-?--Light current 02:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
It's giving someone with something, without their consent, that alters their mood to make them more sexually complaint that makes it rape. Read date rape drug. -- SCZenz 02:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Alcohol?--Light current 02:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
According to our article on date rape, alcohol is the most common drug used in rapes. -- SCZenz 02:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
So?--Light current 02:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that administering drugs without consent is probably illegal in most countries. But administering drugs is not equivalent to rape or any other crime. --Light current 02:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Nobody said it was, LC. You're creating an argument where one doesn't exist. Given the seriousness of the subject matter, I think creating such an argument is most unpleasant. Can you please leave this subject alone? -- SCZenz 02:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I didnt start the argument. You did. Your post implies that admiinstering of any substance that dulls the senses is equivalent to rape. It plainly is not 8-)--Light current 03:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
"If I inject some of form parasite into an unwilling women" - That sentence ends the argument, LC. The questioner is asking for (hypothetically or not) date rape drug advice, and making jokes about it is not acceptable here or anywhere. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the page on the substance in question, it is not described as a date rape drug. According to the pages descriiption it acts more like an aphrodisiac.--Light current 03:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
GHB can be used for medical purposes as well. What is important is the way it is administered and the obvious intent to commit a crime by the OP. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
How do you know the OP was intending a crime? (Apart from the injection which is of course a crime which I do not condone in any way shape or form) BTW whats GHB? Were we talking about that?--Light current 03:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment on LC's categorization above

I agree, in general, that reactions to the post (and to answers) should've been here rather than the ref desk page, and I applaud that LC aknowledges that and wants to discuss it. However, I think the first things Anchoress and I said were both attempts to answer the question. The original IP asked if he would go to jail, and we were explaining that 'administering a noxious substance' (as Anchoress clarified) is a criminal act. I meant to say that doing this for the purpose of having sex with the victim would be rape, which I feel was the implication of the original question; Anchoress certainly said it better than I did, though. -- SCZenz 04:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If anyone feels that their post is in the wrong section, please move it 8-)--Light current 05:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Distraction

Im really saddened to see that editors have allowed thamselves to become so distracted caused by one slightly dubious question posted on the RD. If we allow ourselves to be distracted thus, we will never get anywhere.

Dont forget the other troll posts that have had us all writing reams and reams. To what end? Polarisation and hatred. The fundamental rule of ignoring provocation is continually being ignored by everyone.

I make this sincere appeal to everyone to:

  • broaden their minds
  • ignore provocation
  • put the word microscopes away (esp SCZ)
  • dont read between the lines
  • DFFT and
  • lighten up everybody for Gods sake!

--Light current 03:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that if you are making a "sincere appeal to everyone" then, you need not say something like "(esp SCZ)" as that would make it seem that SCZ is not part of your "everyone". You need not be so obtuse about everything, a bit of subtlety may indeed go a long way. I'm sure glad that it's not my name in those "(esp)" parens but if it were then I (and perhaps others) may question the sincerity of your "sincere" appeal. --hydnjo talk 04:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
SCZ is part. Its just that he seems sometimes to read things into posts which just aint there. 8-(--Light current 04:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, it just doesn't seem right to single out any individual in an appeal to everyone, it's at best confusing and may be interpreted by some as insincere. It seems to me that such a broad appeal as you have cast has no place for singling out any individual or, if otherwise, you should reword your appeal as it seems to not be so universal as you would have us believe. --hydnjo talk 05:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • n.b. my comment directly above and third above makes no sense if viewed as presented here. Actually, my comments were directed towards the now redacted:
  • put the word microscopes away (esp SCZ) and not the abridged version shown above which currently reads:
  • put the word microscopes away (
In the first case, my comments have some context and may therefor be judged by others whereas in the second case my comments have no contextual value whatsoever. I would ask that you view my comments above within the context of the bullet point: • put the word microscopes away (esp SCZ) as that is the point to which I was responding. --hydnjo talk 05:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm really saddened by this lame call-out. The only editor writing reams and not answering the question was you, Light current. The question and its intent are clear, your obtuseness is the only thing in the collective response geared at polarisation and hatred. It reads as though you didn't get the gist of the question when you initially responded, and hence feel the need to react aggressively in order to prove yourself - if that's the case then take it on the chin and stop wasting bandwidth. Please. Natgoo 19:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
If the intent of the Q was clear, why did you not flag it up earlier before all the hoo hah? Im talking about the talk pages (this one in particular).You dont have to join if you dont want to! HNY 8-)--Light current 20:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
From where in my response do you infer that I was anything but asleep at the time? And I don't have to join what? The race to decrease the signal to noise ratio on the RD? You have that firmly in hand, and don't need my help. Natgoo 21:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Because you go ape-shit over anyone who ever deletes anything, so if a revolting trollish question that damages the encyclopedia is posted when no one who ignores your disruptive behavior is patrolling, it stays. If only you hadn't driven off all of the other positive contributors... Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
So you noticed it as well? Congrats! But you didnt say anything. Do you have figures for the positive contributors who have left? BTW care to define 'disruptive'?--Light current 21:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 8-)
No, I was not watching the page at that time. Disruptive is damaging to the encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Would you care to define the term disruptive?--Light current 01:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Light current that 'everybody lightening up' would be nice to see. However, I have noticed that telling someone, or everyone, to lighten up never has the desired effect. So -- everybody be strict and harsh; get it out of your system, and let's all start fresh on New Year's. :) --Vranak 02:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Reposted?

So, LC reposted the thread. As I see it, the consensus above is clearly that deleting it was the right thing to do so I'll delete it again fairly soon unless there's an outpouring of comments supporting re-adding it. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Consider this my outpouring of comment to delete. I should have deleted the question in the first place rather than respond as I did. Had I done so, I feel that this would not have escalated to this level, well, it might have anyway but I don't think so. I've now come to the conclusion that using my own common sense in these matters is of more benefit to this project than cowering in the shadow of the D(eletionist) word. The divisive and combative stance of some has led, in my case, to a lowering of my own standards so as to accomidate those thin-skinned individuals who are trying to remove any semblance of personal responsibility about any of their responses and further to hold, so it seems, that if there is an iota of correctness in their response then, their entire response is legitimized and should stand uncorrected. Please delete it as it was a trollish question which should have been treated as such and as such, has no place on these desks. Post it in some other venue if you like but not in this one. --hydnjo talk 00:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Please wait for a consensus of opinion. There is no evidence that it was asked in anything other than GF. If there is , please declare it! Any other unilateral action is outright censorship.
How do we know only NOW that it is a Q designed to cause controversy? Is it because of all the controversy it has caused.? Why could not the editors (now so vociferous) in favor of its deletion have pointed out their feelings on this post before 2 normal editors responded to it?
This is a question about infection (yes its an infection) by toxiplasma whatyacallit and its effects on the libido of women. As such it is a perfectly legitamte Q.
Im damn sure that if I had not provided an answer to this Q, that it would not even have been noticed. Its removal (along with subsequent replies) is purely a way of attacking me and my judgement and now has nothing at all to do with the original Q and it trollworthiness. 8-((--Light current 00:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
LC, what exactly would you call a consensus to delete? I see something like 5 comments above supporting deleting it and only you saying to wait. How long should we wait? Note that calling this a consensus based on 5 or 6 comments over 12 hours is not what I'd actually call "consensus", but I find the whole notion of raising a consensus to delete comments like this to be kind of peculiar (comments are archived before a reasonable consensus period has passed). In any event, if there aren't more comments about this in like the next 10 minutes I'll delete the thread again based on the "consensus" shown by the comments above. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The cut and paste re-add is illegitimate on its face. There are no sig & time stamps with linkage to anything. Please remove at once as the formatting does not represent the original posts. As it now stands, the indenting is meaningless and as such it is a counterfeit of the original postings by several RD volunteers. I for one, do not wish this misrepresentation of my posts to stand. --hydnjo talk 01:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Opinions on keep/ no keep

Keep it. There's no reason why a serious answer can't be given, such as the one by Anchoress. StuRat 01:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hang on StuRat, my first answer was serious as well even quoting our page on the subject.! 8-(--Light current 01:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, find some little corner of legitimacy and hang your argument on that! --hydnjo talk 02:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete it. There is plenty of reason why a non-serious answer should be deleted, such as the one by Light current. Oh, and I see that the re-post has been re-posted so as to be a more accurate representation of the original posts. This re-re-post makes my comments (two above) about this moot. --hydnjo talk 01:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course my answer was serious! Why did you think it not? It was letting the poster know that I thought he was The Mask--Light current 01:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
That is of course confusing, misleading, and of no import if the OP isn't the mask person. So, it's Lc (1) for being so clever and OP (0) for not being Mr. Mask. Nice going Mr. RD Volunteer! --hydnjo talk 01:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
THe pupose of my post was , as Im sure you know, to cut the possible troll dead by preventing him from coming out with his favorite saying (do you remember him?)--Light current 02:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Playing games with trolls is feeding them. Don't do it anymore. -- SCZenz 05:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep--Light current 02:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Lc, I don't get it. If your strategy here (speaking to those that feel that it is worth all of this to keep a trollish back-and-forth on these pages) is to claim some iota of legitimacy by some obscure (at this late date) WP reference then you must realize how slippery the ground on which you stand really is. We RD volunteers do the best we can within a timeframe appropriate for the RDs. This isn't an article (which has days/weeks/months/years to mature), it's a question posed for the sake of our collective knowledge and wisdom. "Come back in a few days so that we may debate this amongst ourselves" isn't an option. Inevitably, a response from me or from you will in a few hours seem incomplete, incorrect, or unwise. There is no shame in going back and striking, amending, or extending ones response (at least I thought not until recently). It seems by some that any response is carved with the hand of a superior being that dare not be tinkered with. "He said that the universe was created in seven..." and so it must be. Is there no hope? I think not. If any of us were to go back and with the benefit of unlimited time and language ambiguity were given the exercise of defending a withdrawn comment, we could do so. That's what politics is all about, restating and re-contextualizing for selfish reasons. So Lc, defend all you want, it makes no positive impression on many of us. --hydnjo talk 02:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
So, at this point, we have 2 comments favoring keep (LC and StuRat), and 6 comments favoring delete (SCZenz, Ned Wilbury, me, Anchoress, Wooty, and hydnjo). Is this really the way we want to deal with comments like this? Is anyone happy about this? Would LC or StuRat be willing to delete this comment given this level of consensus? I repeat my (serious) question from above - how long should we wait? The admin in me says "consider the arguments". As far as I can tell, the "keep" arguments boil down to "it might be a serious question". The "delete" arguments seem (to me) far more compelling, i.e. it's a troll looking to see how inappropriate a question he can get away with. My judgement says "delete it" (without counting votes, but even counting votes the outcome seems clear). I really do want to be fair here. Any further comments? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
My thought is that there is no reason to continue to engage in dialogs on this issue with Light Current or StuRat. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. It's clear here that there's nothing going to be gained here and consensus is rather against them (see Rick's comment above). At the point where we're talking about criminal acts without any sort of context ("oh, I'm writing a book and blah blah blah" might be OK), I don't see any reason these "questions" should be kept. There are two possibilities here. One, the person actually intended to go around injecting people with parasites (I doubt this, but you never know). At this point, a delete is definitely required (if we don't do legal advice, or medical advice, why should we do them both wrapped into one and then turned to malicious intent?). If the user was simply asking, we're still giving him legal advice, as well as sanctioning the idea. --Wooty Woot? contribs 04:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Part of a comment that I posted on Lc's talk:
We're the team! Not the jerks who will always find clever devices to cause dissent. In an open and public forum such as the RD, hell as a teenager I'd try my damnedest to screw around "their (read yours and my) heads". I'll bet that if you and I were to jump out (as Douglas Hofstadter put it, "JOOTS") and come in surreptitiously, we could cleverly raise a lot of conflict around these parts now couldn't we.  ;-) --hydnjo talk 03:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
And as such, I feel that trollish questions require no response. --hydnjo talk 04:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes but you answered it! THerefore you didnt think it was trollish at the time. What made you change your mind. Certainly not subsequent posts from the OP.--Light current 01:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pruning the comments to include only serious answers would have been ok, provided that this situation was maintained. But a trolling question on that subject, if it were to be answered, had to maintained at some level of decorum. I removed the section because I judged that maintaining that decorum would meet with even more complaints than just taking the thing out. -- SCZenz 05:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


HMMMMM! 2 votes each. THat means the staus quo should subsist does it not? If no more 'deletes' I will replace with pleasure! 8-))—Preceding unsigned comment added by Light current (talk • contribs)

Please don't. There are several other people who agreed with this course of action on the talk page, or removed the comments from the page, but did not make a formal vote. Besides, your keep vote had no argument in terms of Wikipedia policies or the goals of the reference desk. -- SCZenz 01:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Soreee-- too late! Original post with my original answer restored.

I HAVE REMOVED MY JOKE ABOUT THE MASK AS PROMISED. THE REST STAYs.

There was no agreement to remove the original post.- only my amusing reply.That has now been removed. 8-)--Light current 02:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I would certainly be in favor of removing the original post. --Wooty Woot? contribs 02:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
That was not part of the original complaint. Please do try to keep up if you want to discuss things! 8-)--Light current 02:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Light current, please stop playing games. Putting this back was a bad idea- it serves no useful purpose. See the discussion above explaining why. Friday (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. You are on trial- Id be careful what you say if I were you--Light current 02:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict

This comment was added just as I was re-removing the section we've been discussing. (Note that I re-removed it because THB was under the impression that it was removed by accident and re-added it. I've now invited him to join this discussion rather than continuing this disappointingly-protracted edit war.) Anyway, the comment was: -- SCZenz

  • This question is closed. The question is trollish and is requesting advise on how to commit a crime... and no more information is needed in any case. ---J.S (T/C) 03:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Basically, what I mean is that if the question is serious, asking about illegal assault and the possible legal ramifications is outside of the scope of wikipeida. If, in the more likely event the question is trollish, is should be removed anyway. ---J.S (T/C) 04:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a game

I've deleted this comment after asking the poster about it and getting no response. If anyone has any problems with this please speak up here. Suicide is not a joking matter. The most charitable interpretation I can come up with is that the statement is true, in which case it's only a horribly inappropriate forum. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Completely agreed. "So, how sly can I get while making personal attacks" is not the sort of game we play on the RD. --Wooty Woot? contribs 20:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The removal was appropriate, in my opinion. Why did you leave the substitute link Grossly inappropriate comment deleted? Do we want to draw attention to the post and to the fact that posts get removed at the reference desk? Or is it common policy to leave a track behind, besides the page's history, on the page itself when you remove posts? I'm genuinely curious and don't know. These aren't rhetorical questions. ---Sluzzelin 21:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
There have been significant concerns raised by some of the regular responders about unilateral deletions of essentially any comments, partly because the RD pages are high enough traffic that it's fairly difficult to detect when a comment has been deleted. Leaving a comment about a deleted comment is one idea that's been proposed to help address these concerns. The point is not to draw attention to the post or to the fact that posts might get removed, but to help the poster figure out what happened. It is not (and should not be) common to delete posts, so I don't think there's a "common policy". -- Rick Block (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. ---Sluzzelin 22:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
And I found the relevant discussion now. Sorry, it's hard for me to keep track. ---Sluzzelin 22:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I can understand why you'd feel the need to add the note. I try to stay out of this stuff as much as I can, since I have no desire to be attacked, but I once removed a personal attack on someone (and a really unhelpful comment) from the RD, adding a clear flag of what I had done and why in the edit history. It was reverted and called vandalism, as well as deletionist :-S Skittle 01:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm in 100% agreement. Suicide ain't funny, and Wikipedia isn't a playground or a place to make obnoxious jokes at each other. If LC really knows someone who is suicidal, I wholeheartedly hope that he finds an appropriate way to get help for that person, and I will personally do anything I can to assist him... but I doubt very much that that's what he meant. -- SCZenz 22:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Im sorry I havent responded in the few microseconds it has taken for this thread to emerge. I have been out with friends who gathered together to mourn the death of a mutual friend and a close friend of mine. I hope this has not caused the community too much trouble 8-((--Light current 01:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No it hasn't, Light current. And I'm very sorry for your loss. The strong emotions we feel when we lose our loved ones is the reason I was offended by your post. It's not a biggy, and the community certainly hasn't suffered much because of it. Yet, in my sensitivity, this was an instance where a speedy removal was appropriate. ---Sluzzelin 01:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? Im sure a few editors (even I) have felt suicidal at times. THerfore the statement was correct.--Light current 01:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Then go to a psychiatrist; your comment sounded a lot like an attempt to subtly belittle others. --Wooty Woot? contribs 01:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Then you should get your hearing or eyesight tested as you are seeing or hearing things that are not there. Abit like some other editors 8-)--Light current 03:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't worried about accuracy, but about appropriateness. You wrote that you were aware of a few editors who appear to be suicidal, and you added a smiling face to your post, which, to me, indicated that the post was supposed to be taken lightly or in a joking manner. Again, it's no biggy, and I realize you didn't mean any offense. I just don't think it belongs in that thread, because I find it offensive and, at the same time, you know it wasn't an answer to the question. ---Sluzzelin 02:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, since human beings are also animals, the response was entirely accurate. As to appropriateness, there will always be some comments that upset some people. I get upset and offended (sometimes grossly) by lots of comments here but I dont go whining an whinging about it! 8-)--Light current 02:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Allowing time for comments

I would like to note that there is no evidence that LC saw Rick's request before the comment was deleted. I'm not saying that removing this particular comment required feedback from the poster—it is in extremely poor taste, and entirely without relevance to the question. I'd have no objection to you saying that you didn't think we could afford to leave it up any longer... but certainly it's not LC's fault he hadn't replied yet, and I think Rick's post above could have made that clearer. -- SCZenz 22:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree and did not mean to imply there was any reluctance on LC's part. This is actually one issue I have with the proposed rule involving consensual deletions. Certainly no one is around 24x7. As far as I can tell LC had logged off for the day (evening his time, I think). I am at this point choosing to believe he would have agreed to remove it. I removed it since I suspect I would have done so even if he'd refused (so, yes, I thought we couldn't afford to leave it up any longer). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. It's important to explain these things, because some users (LC included) are especially sensitive to the idea that requesting removal is duplicitous if the response isn't listened to or if removal happens befor there is a response. I don't think that viewpoint is accurate, but if we do go ahead and delete something after asking then explanation helps avoid bad feelings. -- SCZenz 23:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record it's Lc, not LC. I don't know if makes any real difference but it at least acknowledges his preferred WP name style. --hydnjo talk 03:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
IM not really fussy. I get called a lot worse!! 8-)--Light current 03:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Heading change

Hi, I just wanted to note that I changed a heading which was irrelevant to the question asked below it, and also removed some meta-discussion about that heading. I'd say that, in general, we shouldn't let irrelevant headings distract us from questions, and that we should change them without worrying about it very much. Any thoughts? -- SCZenz 22:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

We've had a discussion on just this issue, and decided that you shouldn't change the orginal heading, as it may be used as a search term, but may add a more descriptive title afterwards, in parens. StuRat 23:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
When the title is deliberately irrelevant, or trolling (like the recent "an infinite rod in my pants," which I shortened to "an infinite rod"), my sympathy is limited. I don't think people who give blatantly un-descriptive titles do so by accident, and if they do I don't expect they'd know to use them as a search term. -- SCZenz 23:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
If we are that worried about a trollish title being searched for at some future time then let the trollish title (in this case: Yes, I like cheese) be put in parens and not a legitimate title such as: Painful but nonlethal stabbing. Deleting the trollish title entirely (as you have done) would however be my first choice, we don't need to be mocked in this manner. --hydnjo talk 00:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm I like cheese too. Or is that not relevant ATM? 8-)--Light current 01:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with contentious questions

Following the thread at WP:ANI, I would like to suggest a procedure for removing contentious questions (or even contentious answers) that the current Reference Desk regulars can agree on. A good starting point would be that reverting the removal of a question is NOT the right thing to do (that way lies edit warring). Reverting a removal must be discussed first. The reference desk won't collapse if a removed question is not replaced straightaway, and it won't collapse if one poster of a question finds that their question has been removed (if the poster is an established user, make it a requirement to post a note to the user's talk page inviting them to participate in the debate). Then follow a procedure to decide whether the question should be put back, and in what form (maybe modifying the question would help). At the end of the procedure, restore the question/answer or leave it removed. Carcharoth 02:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no clear opinion on the matter anymore, but want to point out that this has also been discussed at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/guidelines#Deletion and Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/guidelines among other places. ---Sluzzelin 02:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Completely the wrong way round. THe default should be retention not removal of OPs and answers--Light current 02:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The default certainly is the other way around. 99% of posts and responses are posted and retained without objection. We're talking about the 1% of the time when there is something that someone objects to. In this case, leaving it on the desk in highly plain sight, is the wrong default. The question boils down to what causes the least amount of harm. If an appropriate question or response is erroneously removed for some period of time, I claim no harm has been done (yes, your oh so witty retort might not show up for a day or two - if this is significant "harm" in your book you need to get a different book). If a damaging question or response is left in plain sight for the 1-2 days it takes to establish a "consensus" that it should be deleted, whatever damage it might have done has already been done. Your suicide comment, for example, was highly disturbing. Several kids in my high school committed suicide. My brother committed suicide (really, no shit). Suicide is not a joking matter. News stories about suicide generally result in a rash of suicides (I'm sure I can find a reference if you'd like). I don't give a rat's ass how much you think this comment deserves to see the light of day, you're simply wrong. Leaving it up while we talk about it is not the right approach. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
No need to bring unnecessary emotional baggage into the discussion. We shouldn't treat suicide as taboo like a bunch of grade schoolers horrified by the sex articles. People do it, some people get their jollies by being cynical about it, everyone moves on --frothT C 07:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about your unfortunate experiences of this subject esp your brother. Now I know why you are sensitive about the subject. So why not delete the whole thread about suicide if its disturbing to some people. Or doesnt animal suicide matter?--Light current 04:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Light current, the question on animal suicide was an ethological question and very legitimate. We read that lemmings kill themselves, then we hear that it's not that simple, or that it's all a myth. We read and hear about pets with very human traits and so forth. The questioner could also legitimately have asked a serious question on human suicide and it would have deserved being answered too. Just because it's a disturbing subject doesn't mean it can't be addressed at the reference desk. The thread became offensive, in my opinion, when another disturbing subject ("some of us are suicidal too") was included in an unserious (added smiley) and off-topic manner. The question was about animals, and you know the questioner wasn't talking about homo sapiens sapiens, but about the rest of the animal kingdom, otherwise why the pet turtle example? ---Sluzzelin 04:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
So Sluzz its ok to make light of animal suicide but not human version. Is that right?

I don't believe lemmings are suicidal unless they're being chased off a cliff by Walt Disney's crew. Vranak 17:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

--Light current 04:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit that that post didn't offend me. Perhaps it wasn't the best of all answers, but I interpreted it as on-topic ("pop culture is to blame that we all believe in the lemming-myth") even if it included a joke. ---Sluzzelin 04:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Well there you go! But someone who had lemmings as pets might feel different. Things are just not as claer cut as some would have us believe. Anyway, as I said before: we are all animals. Some animals behave more like animals than others.--Light current 04:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
This argument is an example of pure silliness. Stop playing games, please. -- SCZenz 05:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
(copied from WP:ANI) Almost right, the start of an edit war is the first unilateral (non-consensus) deletion. The proper procedure is to discuss it first with the author, and then, if the author refuses to remove it and further action is warranted, bring it up at the Ref Desk talk page. If a consensus to delete is reached there, then the post can be removed. StuRat 03:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The question has been brought up "what harm is done by a unilateral deletion" ? Here are some ways removing a question causes harm:
  • The OP doesn't get their question answered if their post is removed. They may leave Wikipedia in disgust.
  • If nobody even bothers to notify them, they won't even know what happened, and will either repost or leave in disgust.
  • Anyone who attempted to answer the post has had their contributions deleted as well. They may leave Wikipedia in disgust.
  • An edit war is likely to erupt.
So, the question is, what good is done by a unilateral deletion that justifies risking all this damage ? And, conversely, how harmful can it be to leave the question in until it can be discussed and a consensus can be reached ? StuRat 04:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Allow me to disagree. Regarding a controversial question, there is little harm in delaying its appearance, while there may indeed be harm in leaving it up, particularly if it is potentially troll bait. I just don't get some of the insistence around here that if a question is posed, say by the posters very first edit, and it seems to some old-timers (that's not Alzheimer's, its old-timers; sometimes called regulars) that the question seems to be insincere at best, that it is our obligation as WP volunteers to give the benefit of any doubt to the questionable poster. Let me be blunt - that's nuts. Our first obligation is to this project and not to a passerby who we suspect is pulling our chain; there is unfortunately, too much space between the two amongst us. The less conservative willing to give the benefit of doubt to all but the most egregious posters and (let me outline my own position) the "burned once, twice shy" approach of rving in a courteous manner whilst we ponder amongst ourselves.
The divide of course is about which is which. There will never be congruence amongst us on all of the questions posed and so the issue seems to be about the direction in which we should lean; remove and discuss or leave in place while discussing. The safest thing is to remove and discuss and that is the position I support. A questionable question should not stay up while being discussed.
This of course leads to the real crux - after discussion there continues to be disagreement. Well then I lean in the direction that if we can't agree amongst ourselves as to the appropriateness of a disputed inquiry then it should be dismissed. You realize of course that the OP is long gone and it is only we who are left wringing our collective hands and pinning the D or I label on each other while the troll goes about trolling.
This is a philosophical issue about which there is no intrinsic right or wrong, only opinion. It can go on and on or we can just all settle down a bit, leave each of us to our own opinion, pay attention to the issues that you wish to address and leave the questionable stuff off the table or bring it back under your own nameplate with perhaps a different wording but with certainly better credentials. --hydnjo talk 04:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes you must realise here that we are debating the principle of removals. If we allow unilateral deletions like we have been doing, its a very short step to complete censorship by any deletionist editor or Admin.
Your idea would seem to be that if anyone thought they saw a dodgy Q, they could immediately remove it and it would be up for discussion as to whether it was replaced or not. Is that right? If so, I see lots of legit qs never making onto the desks. But if thats what people want....
And since we still do not have any agreed purpose for the RDs, should I or anyone else really give a shit about strict censorship? Will anyone still bother to answer the totally mundane Qs--Light current 05:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the point. We're not a "very short step" from anything, because we have very clearly defined reasons for removing posts. We must be able to use common sense and to deal with deliberately unhelpful (i.e. trolling) questions and inflammatory but otherwise purposeless posts. It's how all of Wikipedia works—if something is the right thing to do, we don't have to debate it before we do it. Unfortunately, the reason we have edit wars is that some users believe removing posts is essentially never the right thing to do—but they're in error, because quality content is a higher proprity than "free speech rights" (a fact that's true for all of Wikipedia). I'll never advocate removing quality posts for no reason, and it's frustrating to see people defending actively unhelpful posts for no reason.
As for the purpose of the reference desk, I'd propose that it's to provide neutral, verifiable answers to questions of fact whose answers might not exist in our articles, and to help people locate information that is in our articles. -- SCZenz 05:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Debating any particular question as is being done above will be fruitless. Each "side" will continue to bolster its position with little regard for any commentary from the other "side". So, where does that leave us? Nowhere.
Again, this is a philosophical debate and not a factual one; there are no citations which will prove one side over the other, it has to do with how we wish this desk project to be managed - and let's not forget that, we're speaking about the management of these desks.
One observation which strikes me is that this controversy isn't universal across the desks. It is predominantly at the /M and to a lesser extent at the /S. Is that perhaps that those forums invite a more free-for-all venue for controversy; I can't imagine this all happening at the Computer desk and I wonder why. It may be instructive for us to ponder that (or if you're stuck with your own POV then don't). I know that my comments here will be regarded by some as so much noise and I believe that that is part of the problem; repeatedly reading ones own comments and thereby assigning a greater value to those comments which inspire us (the re-read ones of course)
If y'all are thinking that a codified set of behavior rules will substitute for "common sense" then keep trying, I'm pessimistic of that approach. I also think that the "group hug" crap is just that. The thing that I'm most optimistic about is that we will tire of this infighting (which has no end) and the personal animosities (which will bear no fruit) and the burden of histories (which can't be changed) and the I win - you lose bravado (which is unsustainable) and the "I remember you" prejudices (which hamper our reasoning) and the "I'll just ignore everybody else" attitude (which is well, selfish). --hydnjo talk 05:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
lol, well, group hug to that. ---Sluzzelin 05:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
If I may say so, hydnjo speaks the most sense I have heard around here for a long time. The problem is this has turned into a pissing contest (and this is increasingly obvious from some of the paranoid rhetoric being generated - see below for a prime example). the debate is inseparable from the personal ideologies, opinions and disputes between the principle protagonists. If we would all trust the "common sense" of each other there is no need whatsoever for "deletionist" or "inclusionist" defaults. That simply isn't going to happen, and so now we are left with a policy battle that appears, quite frankly, unresolvable in the midterm. I hope people will begin to tire of this conflict soon, but I fear its all going to end in tears for some people as the tensions escalate. I sincerely hope that doesn't happen though, as it will be the RD's loss. Rockpocket 05:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
So for those of us who never believed they were equipped to win the pissing contest, but still would like a reference desk without nasty negativity and without points being proven, what do you suggest? To shut up and stop contributing to the noise until everyone is tired of fighting? Quite frankly, I'm also tired of the never-ending debate, but what are the choices beyond dialogue or non-dialogue? ---Sluzzelin 06:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought you'd never ask! Seriously though, I count myself among your number of frustrated RD participants and my personal strategy has been to ignore the specialist policy and continue to answer questions as best as I can, according to the remit of the RD. I view the current efforts at forging as nothing more as instruction creep forged by ideology. Irrespective of what specialist rules we can conjure up, the over-riding principles of the project would be perfectly sufficient for me to justify removing an inappropriate question, or replace an appropriate one, as I saw fit. I have done so in the past and no-one seemed to be too concerned about it, probably because I've not (yet) been identified as a member of one of the arbitrary and opposing "sides" that some believe to exist. So why am I contributing to the noise? Well, every so often I get the idea in my head that a third way might actually be possible. Then I realize that is never going to happen, disappear for a week or two, only to come back and see the debate is no further forward and all that has been achieved is a higher level of personal conflict. In my opinion, it really doesn't matter what you do, Sluzzelin. The position of some individuals appear so entrenched that, dialogue or non-dialogue, they are simply not going to relent. How is this going to end? My money is on one or two of the key players getting the hump and leaving or, more likely, picking up a ban. Rockpocket 06:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Rocketpocket, I couldn't agree more. I'm encouraging us all to pull away from this ill considered warlike crap and just go on helping the folks who come here for our help. We always have the option to walk away from a trollish or uncomfortable question but, there are plenty more. I personally don't intend to get hung up on any bullcrap questions and further, if sufficiently egregious, I intend to delete, and you should do the same. Go to the talk page a week later and they'll still be debating your action so I ask you: who's ahead. --hydnjo talk 07:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Here, here!! Rockpocket 07:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Points well made, advice taken, instant relief felt. Out. ---Sluzzelin 07:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin strategy succeeded?

It would appear the the sustained action by admins has indeed reduced the number of answers (both appropriate and inappropriate) given on the RDs and therefore the Admin strategy has succeeded. This is not surprising since the main RD respondents have been tied up fighting their corner here and elsewhere. Perhaps this was the Admin strategy all along! Clever! --Light current 05:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind being specific with who you believe to be involved in this conspiracy? As it is, it is nothing more than an attack by insinuation with very little constructive value. Rockpocket 05:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes--Light current 05:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Lc, do you have any evidence that questions aren't being answered well because of a decline in the number of posts? -- SCZenz 05:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
SCZ allow me (Lc is busy in the lobby photographing Elvis). It's obvious that there must be a conspiracy going on which is being sponsored by the cabalista. Why else would there be such a "sustained action by admins" in order to cause a "reduced the number of answers". The jig is up, we all know now! --hydnjo talk 05:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
And Rockpocket, everybody except the three no, four no, five no, six, no,five no, four like we said three are definitely involved, every one of them (except the three). --hydnjo talk 06:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise ... -- Rick Block (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
WEll Ive just been accused of being silly above, but this is stupid. Also I never accused anyone of consipary.--Light current 06:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
..."the sustained action by admins has indeed reduced the number of answers..." sure sounds like a conspiracy to me. --hydnjo talk 06:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Everyone please continue to contribute as if nothing has gone on - after all, nothing has really gone on. If you screw up then someone will mention it and so what. Go on to the next RD place where you think that you can be of service. Let the leavings to be discussed ad-infinitum by others, just move on and help someone else. --hydnjo talk 06:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I see very little point in continuing to post on the newly censored RDS 8-((--Light current 06:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Wrong Lc, when you or anyone sees censorship you or they should speak up, I know that I will. --hydnjo talk 06:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I might be in a tiny way guilty of this.. I've kind of given up on this exhausting debate, consigning it to eternal argument and no change (which works out since that was my original opinion anyway) but as for the RD, I'm gearing up for a RfA sometime this semester so I have to spread my roots a little --frothT C 08:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Exit

Good luck! I think Ive finally had enough of this petty small minded, politically correct, conservative, censorial, and oh so careful attitude by some Admins on the RDs. Dont frighten the newbies- but sod the oldies they dont matter a toss! Well enjoy your small world: Itll get smaller by the day if you carry on in this mode until it eventually disappears up its own black hole.--Light current 06:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The success of the RD depends not so much on "luck" as the good intentions of the RD volunteers. You should realize that without the good intentions, the peer review in which we all participate, and our willingness to admit and correct our own mistakes then this RD would be nothing more than one more blog. We think that we're better than that. --hydnjo talk 06:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Written before seeing Lc's Exit - Good luck message but being posted anyway. Ummm, 'scuse me Lc but this (RD) sidecar to the main encyclopedia has been running pretty good all along. I don't quite understand all of the contentious debate over an ill considered or trollish question being dealt with by deletion. If anyone feels that the poster of such a question has been slurred then by all means repost the question (perhaps slightly reworded) yourself. What's the harm? Some folks act as though if one of a hundred questions (I think that it's less than that) is removed then the entire WP structure has been put at risk. Not at all, this goes on all the time within the article space and to think that the WP space (specifically the RD part) should be immune is absurd. Please don't make this an "us and them" situation; no one is being censored, no one is being deprived of RD privileges be they questions or answers, no one is being denied due WP process, no one is being hampered of free speech, no one is being singled out for scrutiny, no one is being asked to stop contributing, and especially, no one is being asked to stop criticizing. That last one is the most important of all in that this is after all a community. Sure if you don't agree with the goings on within the community you can always pick up your ball and go home, but what's the point in that?
If you're here to win debating points then I suggest that you're at the wrong place. It seems that we are not only the debaters but also the judges of those debates. There is no "higher power" of appeal for no matter how high you go in this organization it's still us (except for Jimbo of course). The optimum course for successful influence around here is to obviously... (oops, I've run out of space here so I'll type the optimum strategy in the margin of this page....  ;-) --hydnjo talk 07:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Probably inappropriate to bring it up more than a week later, but that 1% of questions is what's actually up for debate, nobody's talking about the 99. --frothT C 08:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, Lc's account has been editing since 1 August 2005. Wikipedia has been around since 15 January 2001. The Reference Desk has been around since at least 22 February 2002, and possiby earlier. See the earliest version at the Miscellaneous Reference Desk. Before that, it was in the main article namespace. Carcharoth 22:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Im not sure I get your meaning. Care to expand?--Light current 01:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
My meaning is that as a long-standing contributor, you might want to stay and contribute rather than get upset and leave and then (possibly) come back. Lasting a full year on Wikipedia is quite an achievement. If the culture has changed in that time and you no longer enjoy it here, then fine, move on. But the main point I am making is that Wikipedia and Reference Desk was here before you and most of us were, and will probably still be here after we have moved on. Dramatic exits rarely achieve anything. Moving on to some other area you enjoy editing, or to non-Wikipedia activities, might help, and coming back to the Reference Desk later you might find things have cooled down a bit. Carcharoth 02:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thats exactly what Im doing. I'm not leaving WP (yet) just the RDs--Light current 03:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Hehe July 11 '05. And I had a different account a full year before that but I forget what it is --frothT C 03:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Way Forward; a message to Rockpocket and Sluzzelin

I've been kind of busy trying to convince Heidi that I'm doing something worthwhile and not just watching porn. Every hour or so I hear "are you cummin' to bed anytime soon?" Yeah I say, any minute now, Rockpocket and Sluzzelin just made some comments that I'd like to respond to so, back off woman, and let me do my WP best.

Really you guys, I couldn't have wished for more moral support than I got from you guys at that time, It made a world of difference because I didn't know if I was alone or not. Thanks to both of you, I felt like I was on the right track - Thank you. I'd say more but I'd really get yelled at! Let me set up th next section an you guys go nuts with it (have fun, please). OK, I'm going to start by announcing thr two of you (special message and all that stuff) (deleting delete unnecessary stuff) --hydnjo talk

Heheh. Nice one, hydnjo. I'd been summoned to bed by my better half also, so I missed your post. Lets hope others will heed your call to arms and we can get back to the real business of the RD. Rockpocket 19:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Which is?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Light current (talk • contribs)
Answering questions, of course. Rockpocket 20:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Which ones though? THe ones that dont offend anyone, or the ones that dont bring any answers that might offend anyone? Or both?--Light current 00:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I use my judgement about which questions require an answer and which answers are suitable, and I trust others to do the same. I suggest you do likewise. Rockpocket 01:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah no! My judgement is no good. I been told that. 8-(--Light current 02:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Template needed ?

I frequently want to respond to a Ref Desk question with something like this:

Q: Why does X have Y ?
A: Have you read our articles on X and Y ? I don't know whether they address your question or not, but would suggest those as a good starting point. If you've already read both and haven't found your answer, then we don't need to wade through those extensive articles and will look elsewhere for the answers. If you haven't read those articles, please do and let us know if they address your question.

Now, the number of articles that might have the answer could be 1 or more, is there some way to make a template where we just plug in all the obvious article names and save ourselves a lot of redundant typing ? StuRat 21:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be very easy to do. I don't personally know how to, but keep asking or waiting, and the answer will pop out eventually. Have a look at some simple multi-parameter templates and copy those to start with. Carcharoth 22:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Try this, {{Subst:Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/X FOR Y|Thing One|Thing Two}} which you can of course move to template space if you wish--71.247.246.54 22:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


I've made some modifications, mostly allowing anywhere from 1 to 3 parameters. Be sure to check m:ParserFunctions, which is rather new (first time I've heard of it; ran into it while looking for the older Template:qif). -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's see how it works: typing {{subst:Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/X FOR Y|Alpha|Beta|Gamma}} gives: Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Not too well. Once more {{subst:Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/X FOR Y|Alpha|Beta|Gamma}}:Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Back to the drawing board. Hang on... -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, here goes:
Have you read our articles on Alpha, Beta and Gamma? I don't know whether they address your question or not, but would suggest those as a good starting point. If you've already read them and haven't found your answer, then we don't need to wade through those extensive articles and will look elsewhere for the answers. If you haven't read those articles, please do and let us know if they address your question.


Seamless! Only works when substed, though. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
As long as you ignore the giant newlines, which I believe I have now removed. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Looking good, but can we expand the number of params a bit ? What would be a good maximum ? 5 maybe ? StuRat 01:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Not all articles are "extensive" of course. Anyway, the good thing about substing is that you can edit it afterwards and modify the reply to the indiviual situation if needed. Expanding to more parameters should be simple. I'll have a go. Carcharoth 03:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I lied. My eyes still glaze over when confronted with template parser functions! :-) Carcharoth 03:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned that this format of template doesn't give the person asking the question enough credit, though. Taken at it's worst, it reads as "We think you were too lazy to look up the obvious articles already, and we're too lazy to check ourselves if they even contain the information that you were looking for. We can't be bothered to find an answer to your question right now, but if you'd like to come back and ask again so that we know you really, really mean for us to help you answer it, we'd be glad to look at it later." Yeah, there are cases where someone posting a question obviously didn't look at our article on the topic, but if we aren't prepared to look at the article either....
The question about how to handle this situation came about because of this thread, where an editor answered a question with a terse "I assume you've already read our [subject] article?". In this particular case, the wikilinked article didn't actually contain an answer to the question asked. I personally believe that we're in the business of actually providing answers, and it's not really polite to send people who ask us reasonable questions off on a 'wild goose chase' when we don't feel like at least checking to see if the links we provide answer the question asked.
On the other hand, I think that a template (or templates) suitable for use where we can definitively state that our articles do contain the answer might be a good idea. We might offer a bit of basic guidance for newcomers who might be unfamiliar with how to search Wikipedia, as well as point them at articles which answer the questions asked. As well, it might be useful to have a template or two that could be used to indicate clearly where our articles don't answer the question asked—such a template could be useful to editors in improving the encyclopedia by highlighting areas where our articles are lacking. (Bonus points for the person who writes a bot to transfer these marked sections to the appropriate article talk pages when the RD thread is closed.) Thoughts? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
C'mon now, if we need to refer the poster to as many as five articles before deigning to to bother us with their lack understanding or misunderstanding then it is we who are being misunderstood. Directing someone to one or two articles is plenty. For myself, I've sometimes directed an OP to a WP article (link provided) only to feel badly upon investigation that the article was of no help in answering the original question (it should have been and I assumed it would be but after the fact I realized that my response was lacking). If this is really a Research Desk then shoving people off to do their own research is sometimes unhelpful. Further, to automate the process by templating and thus dismissing any serious contemplation is worse than not responding at all. Look, if you go to all of the trouble to re-read five different articles to assure that you are giving appropriate direction then, to write a short reply which would include not only those links but some editorial remarks about them aught not to be seen as asking too much of us. Or, how about a template with an arbitrary number of WP article links? You know that I think that five is too many in my way of thinking but five may be too few for some others. So, why not a universal template capable of referencing any number of links that the responder deems appropriate? --hydnjo talk 04:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ten and Hydnjo. We can all use templates if it helps us, but we should only send people to resources which we know have the answer. If I don't have time to check that, better to let the question be answered by someone who does. -- SCZenz 05:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you know if they answer the person's question? Are you providing links to places without even looking at the pages they link to? Why? It doesn't take long to scan an article to see if it's helpful, and it is terribly frustrating to ask a question on the desk only to be directed to pages that don't mention your problem at all. Quality, not quantity, of posts, surely? Skittle 15:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about you guys, but I feel I have a right to expect the OP to first read the applicable articles and determine if they answer their question. If it's too much to expect them to read up to five articles, then it's way too much to expect us to read five articles, times a hundred questions, each day. If somebody asks me how many moons Jupiter has, I expect them to first read the article on Jupiter, and I don't feel that's an unreasonable expectation. (The five articles limit suggestion is mainly for multiple questions in one post.) StuRat 16:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, that is a reasonable expectation. However, we shouldn't start by assuming that the OP hasn't read the articles, and ask them to come back and re-ask the question after we've sent them off on a wild goose chase. This comes back to my original post above. We should feel free to post a note after we've reviewed the relevant articles and either found them useful to the question or found them wanting. In your 'moons of Jupiter' example, a template which coyly says 'This article might have what you want' doesn't make sense. It takes one of us a couple of clicks to verify this, and give a positive, useful response—even if it is just pointing the reader at the article.
By providing a list of unreviewed links, we would waste the time of everyone who came by who was interested in an answer to the question. (That's why I was annoyed at the response linked in my original post; I didn't ask the original question, but once it was asked, I was genuinely curious about the answer—and I found it irksome to have my time wasted when I went to the linked article only to find it didn't have the answer to the question asked.) The template also wastes the time of people who are trying to give actual answers—if there's no reply from the OP, we're left wondering...did they find the answer in one of the linked articles? Did the OP give up? (Is the OP's English rusty, so that they're kicking themselves for not being able to find a non-existent answer in a linked article?) Should we still be trying to find the answer, because the OP is waiting?
Saying this is equivalent to 'expect[ing] us to read five articles, times a hundred questions, each day' is a red herring—we're volunteers here, and nobody is expecting any one of us to answer all of the RD questions. It's much more useful to write a handful of good answers – that contain links to useful targets which actually answer the OP's question &ndsah; than it is to slap a hundred templates down to direct people to articles that might answer their question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Your irritation was caused by thinking the response meant that the article contained the answer, when it only asked if the OP had read the relevant article. The template is supposed to make this clear. In the Jupiter example, if the OP read the article and it didn't contain the answer, but they didn't mention this, and then the first potential responder read the Jupiter article, and similarly says nothing, and the second potential responder does the same, etc., we could end up with a large number of people wasting their time reading an article which doesn't have the answer, when only one person needed to read it. This is a waste of resources the template is designed to eliminate. StuRat 01:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Putting aside for a moment the burning question of if and when to use the template... It appears that what I have written before didn't work, but I have now fixed it, and extended it to up to 5 parameters. I don't think it is techincally possible to make a template that works with arbitrarily many parameters, but I've made it so that it will be easy to extend the template to as many parameters as we wish. I have moved it to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Article, and please note the special (and awkward) syntax (which I have found no way around): You need not only to subst the template, but also to supply the phrase subst: as the first parameter, and then the articles.
As for the skepticism which shrouds the usage of the template, I don't think it's anything that can't be fixed with the proper wording - towards which SCZenz has already taken a step, and which everyone is invited to improve :) -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Responding to lazy OPs

Questions like "How moons does Jupiter have?" come up all the time at WP:HD. If you think it's a stupid question that can be answered by reading a dreadfully obvious article, either politely point them at the right article or just let somebody else respond. I sometimes use a very mild snark, like "You do realize this is an encyclopedia? Please see the article on Jupiter.", but this is a little dangerous since comments like this can quickly snowball into full fledged WP:BITEs. I think the best approach is to omit any snarkiness and simply point them at the right article, e.g. "Please see the article on Jupiter." -- Rick Block (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly Rick. Many come to the RD expecting that it behaves like a super-search engine but we seem to not even convince a fair number of them to even type four tildes. Many of these first timers could use a bit of hand holding and encouragement not a reading assignment. Each OP needs to be responded to in an individual way, we're going to be wrong sometimes but at least we have given the OP some thought before declaring that "we don't do homework" or read this or that. I've been remiss at times by giving the stock "Have you read... " and then finding that the link (our article) was deficient with regards to the question. Any RD volunteer who's goal is to plow though as many questions as possible and be first-up as well runs the risk of providing an inadequate response which is worse than no response at all. --hydnjo talk 20:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with both of you. I think it's paramount for each of us to remember how many others there are working on the RD; if I personally don't have the time or inclination to give a quality answer, it's a good bet that if I leave it alone then someone else will. -- SCZenz 00:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why have Reference Desks?

Every now and then this question is asked. I get the impression that sometimes the implied answer is "No-one knows, so let us get rid of them" (being in the nature of a "threat" to those who like working on these desks). I believe that the question deserves consideration, not in terms of "keep" or "throw away', but rather in terms of "Why do we do this? Are we using the information we obtain, or are we missing the point here?" My POV is that all reference / complaint / assistance services have multiple benefits: 1. It benefits the client, if it works as a way of obtaining information or service which cannot be found elsewhere in the organisation. 2. It benefits the members / employees, placing abilities and preferences where they are best used. A person may find that being a helper is her preferred activity, compared to say selling or credit management. Simultaneously, it removes the need for such helper activities from those who would rather sell or lend money. 3. It benefits the organisation as a direct means of assessing whether its goals are being attained, whether its sellers are selling appropriate wares and whether the services of the organisation are adequately advertised. It is this last sort of information, that which cannot be assessed in any way other than observation and actual experience, that could be the greatest asset of the RDs, if they are used properly by the editors who frequent them. I suggest that editors who regularly use the reference desk take note of the defects in Wikipedia that questions reveal, and relay this information to editors on the talk pages of the specific articles, or initiate requests for articles in the appropriate places. It sometimes astounds me to see that very simple information is entirely missing from an article, or, if the information exists, that it is found in a quite unexpected place. The template that Meni has illustrated in the above question ends with "and let us know if they address your question." The implication is that we are interested in whether the references help, and this is precisely what I suggest that the RDs can do better than any other part of WP: directly identify problems that users have with the day to day finding and use of information on WP, so that editors can improve the project. (Note that I do not include problems with the search function here:-)) It surprises me not at all that editors of the main articles sometimes see little benefit in the RDs. On the one hand they are getting little feedback, and on the other hand it may be more convenient to believe that an article is good enough, and that it is the user who cannot find something who is at fault. The feedback that RD editors can give may sometimes be irritating to namespace editors, but without RDs Wikipedia can become like a political organisation which has no voter contact. --Seejyb 01:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

One could turn the question around – why maintain the encyclopediac part of Wikipedia? Ursus Horribilis 01:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
LOL. I often disagree with people who think the only purpose of the Ref Desk is to improve Wikipedia articles. I ask them why we want to have good Wikipedia articles, and they say "to provide info to the users". Then I respond "the Ref Desk directly provides info to the user, so serves the same purpose, and any improvement in Wikipedia beyond that is just 'gravy'". StuRat 01:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Interactivity is good. Most of the interaction on 'regular' Wikipedia involves either content disputes, or what to do with unhelpful editors. Ursus Horribilis 02:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm I see you aint been here too long either then? 8-)--Light current 02:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Please lets not go there Lc, It's innapropriate under any circumstances for comment here. --hydnjo talk 04:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Respected sir, I have it on good authority that you have left the Reference Desks, so there would be no purpose in answering your query. ;) Ursus Horribilis
In my opinion, RD's role here should be reduced a lot. It does point us to bad articles, and what can be improved, but it doesn't do a very effective job of it, and it takes away good editors who would normally be editing mainspace articles. I disagree, StuRat, that Wikipedia is simply a tool to give information to others. If it was, there's a hell of a lot of ways to make that happen in a more effective way than a wiki (a pure Reference Desk system on a wiki or otherwise, such as those Answers sites). What we are building is an encyclopedia, not one of the aforementioned sites. I have no problem with the RD (just as I have no problem with Esperanza) if (and only if!) it's a secondary to the main point of this site, which is to build an encyclopedia. Social is fine. Helping others with factual questions is fine. But those should not be the only things an editor does, because everyone has something to contribute, and when these people with certain specialties start going off and making these their primary focus..I'm not sure if this is a healthy environment. --Wooty Woot? contribs 02:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
If you don't think the underlying purpose of building an encyclopedia is to pass information on to others, why exactly do you think we are building it ? Just to entertain ourselves ? StuRat 17:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with you, Wooty. I believe that Wikipedia's internal structure is growing fast and I agree with Seejyb that this allows for a functional differentiation within the community. If the reference desk is seen as useless, that's one thing, but, if we can agree that it's useful to the project, I think it's unrealistic to expect all the project's contributors acting in the same way and seeing mainspace edits as their top priority. ---Sluzzelin 03:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
it takes away good editors who would normally be editing mainspace articles. That's a mighty big assumption, Wooty. Care to quantify that? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd quantify that by looking at the contributions of some (if not most) of the RD regulars. --Wooty Woot? contribs 22:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Guilty as charged. Got me WP:VPRF mod, though. However it's ruining my plans for RfA. A net loss for wikipedia :( --frothT C 08:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a rather large assumption to suppose that Reference Desk 'staffers' would be constructively adding to Wikipedia articles, if only they didn't spend so much time giving mediocre answers here. There is life outside Wikipedia... at least the legends say so. Ursus Horribilis 04:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I would. In fact I used to do both before RDs got so contentious and time consuming with the arguments. Now its not possible. Ive gone back to general editing. --Light current 04:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
There's what -- a million and a half articles to improve? And yet, it's not always easy to find one worth working on. Ursus Horribilis 04:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
OTC I think its quite easy.--Light current 04:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Always, though? Ursus Horribilis 04:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I find that my own interest varies considerably from time to time. I can recall when RfA consumed many hours a day so that I could make a vote with which I felt personally secure. New page patrol is exciting, nip those vandals in the bud I said to myself. Afd, whew, wading through it all requires some commitment indeed. The RD helped me understand the limits of my own understanding. The WP articles themselves of course, which sometimes seem like homework compared to those other less than strict places are certainly a draw. Uploading an image can be a bear but so rewarding when the obstacles have finally been overcome (lots of work for me to do there). Newcomer welcomes, easy peasy.
One observation: although all of those places are within WP, they all seem to have their own culture and expectations of behavior. They all are also populated with their own "regulars" who are quite willing to point out the newcomer's transgressions (ouch, I didn't know...).
Some places however, hold a special sense of ownership for us which differs from person to person. A bit of astute observation allows us to know who's-who everywhere and it is indeed a good thing to know (especially at the various RDs). --hydnjo talk 05:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
If we are on the subject of testifying about what RD means to each of us, I find it a useful starting point for learning. I've lost count the number of times that I see an interesting question and answer, and then find myself spending half an hour moving from linked article to article, reading around the subject. Similarly, I may see a question, do a little research to find the answer then decide to use that research to create or improve an article on the subject. At the very least, my research will often lead to a copyedit, or reformat of an article that I come across. In each of these situations, the RD is facilitating WP. Rockpocket 06:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
While my own "being on RD" on either side of the footlights may not be so representative of others', FWIW I'm willing to write about it. In researching for my jobs (translator/editor for a museum archive plus freelancing in the Arts & Letters), I'll have rather esoteric questions I don't find answered on any WP page, and my queries on those articles' associated Talk pages are likely to go unnoticed. The Humanities or Language RDs offer me a venue to attract the attention of and get help from knowledgeable editors who otherwise would never have known of my query. So to give something back or pay forward, I've started following the RD queries and answering what I can. In the process of providing answers, I try to focus on a lean style replete with internal links, offering a serious response especially to possibly spurious queries. And yes, the time spent "here" is at the expense of my editing content pages, but I feel the RD exists partly for direct, well, let's call it inreach from the infoseeking public, so that serving at the RD is a mission of sorts, on behalf of the good name of Wikipedia. -- HTH, Deborahjay 10:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The false equation has been once again stated: that if editors did not spend x hours answering questions on RD, they would spend x hours on "more valuable" tasks such as editing articles. That might be true if we were paid to be on duty a certain number of hours per week. In fact, I have edited articles as a rsult of questions I have answered here. And if something I enjoy doing is deleted I am that much less likely to participate in other Wikipedia tasks. Edison 18:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Isn't there a name for this specific logic error ? One common manifestation is the argument "the gov shouldn't spend that money on X, because that money could be spent on Y, instead". The Y is always something wonderful sounding, like solving world hunger, curing cancer, etc. The incorrect assumption is that not spending money on X will automatically mean it will be spent on Y. StuRat 05:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_20&oldid=1051891619"